Millennium Dome Experience: Ticket Sales

Ticket Sales

Lord Luke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the forward sale of tickets to the Millennium Dome Experience is adequate to ensure that the whole project will run at a profit by the end of the year.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company never expected a full house in January--very few other visitor attraction sites are full at this time of year. NMEC is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers and is confident that it will sell enough tickets to break even. Independent polls show that visitors have overwhelmingly enjoyed the Dome and would recommend it to their friends.

Lord Luke: My Lords, setting aside the merits and demerits of the Dome project and while thanking the Minister for that reply, I ask him whether he will accept how sorry I am about recent events. Will he say whether he considers that the chairman and board of directors of NMEC have been properly supportive of their erstwhile chief executive? If so, why have they not shouldered at least some of the responsibility for the present crisis and resigned? If they did not wish to support the former chief executive, why did they not take action earlier?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the former chief executive of the Dome company, Jennie Page, did a magnificent job. She delivered the Dome on time and on budget on 31st December 1999. I do not believe that any other person could have worked so well as she has done. However, the board of the company concluded that the Dome needed a different kind of management for the way forward; namely, running a visitor attraction. That was a matter for the board. The decision was taken earlier last month that that would be the way forward. I believe that it was the right decision to take.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in the interests of bringing more young people to the Dome, can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to have Mickey Mouse shaking hands at the door?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the new management will not "Disneyfy" the Dome, but will manage it as efficiently as possible as a visitor attraction.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question that relates to one I put to him some time ago? He gave me a very reasonable answer at the time. The question I then asked was: what would happen if the projections in terms of turnover were not met and the sponsors became restive? I presume that they have agreed to the content, to which they have contributed money. However, now we are in the position of knowing that the projections have not quite come up to the original estimates and some sponsors have expressed concern. How does the Minister see the progress of the relationship between the company and individual sponsors, in particular those sponsors who have not yet put into the pot the full sums that they pledged?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, like everyone else, the sponsors had concerns about the first few weeks of the Dome's operation. Those concerns have been discussed with the management of the New Millennium Experience Company. While they have made clear their precise concerns, they have also all made it clear that they remain firmly behind the Dome. In addition, short-term finance has been made available by the Millennium Commission to deal in part with the fact that visitor numbers at the beginning of the year have not been as high as was expected. However, everyone--the sponsors, NMEC and the Millennium Commission--is satisfied that the Dome can continue and can be a success.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I speak as one who has visited the Dome. Does my noble friend agree that people would not recognise the experience from the one described in press reports? Would he further agree that if people go along to see for themselves, they are sure to enjoy it?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. A large number of polls have been carried out that show how much people have enjoyed their visits to the Dome. The polls--the majority of them produced by the media, which have not been altogether enthralled by the Dome--indicate levels of 80 to 90 per cent satisfaction and record 70 to 80 per cent of respondents as saying that they would recommend the Dome to a friend.

Lord Elton: My Lords, further to the question put to the Minister by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, does the Minister recall telling the House on 12th January that he was proud to say that he was the sole shareholder of the company and that no taxpayers' money of any kind would be used to make good a shortfall? Does he still stand by the comment he made, that he personally could afford to make good the result of any such shortfall?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip says that even now they are holding a whip-round behind me. I stand by the point I made on a previous occasion that not a penny of taxpayers' money will be used to make good any shortfall.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most remarkable achievements of the Dome has been to get the Christian Churches to work together? That in itself is a remarkable achievement. However, leaders of the other faith communities also joined in with those consultations to produce the Faith Zone. Not only does it celebrate all that is good about Christianity and its contribution to society, but it also celebrates the other faith communities of this country. Does the Minister agree that this is a valuable contribution to the celebrations we are rightly enjoying that Britain is now a multi-faith and multi-cultural society?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with all that the noble Baroness has said. The Faith Zone is a great tribute to the Christian Churches and other faiths all working together. When one visits the Dome, one sees significant numbers of people visiting the Faith Zone. They are entranced by what they see and are enjoying a useful and purposeful experience.

Lord Paul: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that no business can be run effectively if earlier projections do not materialise? Projections are made on the basis of a management team ensuring that those forecasts will be accurate.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that all businesses start with sensible projections. Sometimes they become knocked off course, but usually they are able to get back on course and make a success of it.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, was it not the case that the sponsors took a view that attendances were disappointingly low? Is that not totally at odds with the statement with which the Minister first began?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the sponsors were concerned about a number of matters. The statement which I made at the beginning was that NMEC is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers and is confident that it will sell enough tickets to break even. Nothing that I have said is inconsistent with the views that have been expressed by the sponsors.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, was the post to replace Jennie Page advertised, and were the Nolan procedures followed?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it was not advertised. It would not be appropriate to apply the Nolan procedures to a post such as this. It would have taken approximately five to six months to go through the procedures and, in any case, they do not apply.

British Hallmarks: Status

Baroness Trumpington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the status of established British hallmarks following the possible implementation of a draft harmonisation directive of the European Union.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the answer to this Question will depend upon the exact terms of EU harmonising legislation, if and when that is finally adopted. The wording of the current Commission proposal for a directive on the control and marking of articles of precious metals is ambiguous on the status of established hallmarks. However, it could be interpreted as prohibiting national hallmarks in favour of an "e" mark denoting compliance with the directive's requirements. The Government cannot accept the proposed directive in its current form.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am very pleased to hear his last sentence? Does he agree that for 700 years the British hallmark has been the earliest form of continuous consumer protection but is now seen as a barrier to trade? Furthermore, does he agree that, under new European legislation, the marks of many European countries will become valid here, thus creating consumer confusion?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that our hallmarking system is extremely good. I believe that, if it had not been invented in the Middle Ages, we would now be looking forward to it as a new piece of consumer protection. The situation regarding the EU directive is a little more complicated. It involves all three kinds of marking: that of the manufacturer's declaration, product quality assurance and hallmarking. However, we feel that it would lead to a diminution of consumer protection and that is why we have opposed it thus far.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, will the Minister make available the draft directive referred to in the Question? My noble friend will be aware that there have been two draft directives: one issued in October 1993 and the other, following a debate in this House, in April 1996. It would be helpful if the document could be identified. Will my noble friend ensure that, in accordance with the Cabinet Office directive of June last year, a regulatory impact assessment is made of the directive and circulated to all those concerned, including Members of this House and larger interested parties in the country?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should make it clear that this directive was first discussed in 1992. A compromise was raised in the autumn of, I believe, 1998 under the Austrian presidency. The Portuguese presidency does not intend to re-open the issue, and it is opposed both by people such as ourselves, who have a very good hallmarking system, and those who do not have one. It is rather difficult to see how both those parties' interests can be met. I shall of course ensure that the documents are produced and, if it appears that a directive is forthcoming, I am sure that a regulatory impact statement will be produced.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the Government say that they intend to oppose the directive in any of its present forms, will the Minister confirm to the House that the issue is being taken under single market legislation, which will, of course, allow the United Kingdom, as usual, to be outvoted, and that therefore the Government's opposition is worth nothing in that circumstance?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I made clear, the directive was opposed by ourselves, those countries which have strong hallmarking traditions and those which do not have any. Therefore, even under the system of qualified majority voting, a strong group is against the directive and we shall make certain, as far as we can, that the legislation does not go through.

Earl Russell: My Lords, without wishing to dispute anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, says about the antiquity of the hallmark, will the Minister confirm that no institution has been British for 700 years and that the adoption of the hallmark as a British institution is the result of a process of harmonisation?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as always, we are entirely in favour of harmonisation as long as it is on our terms.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, for once, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not correct? Has the House of Lords not been a British institution for 700 years?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that for us simple grocers such a historical matter is far too complicated. I was merely concentrating on the commercial aspects.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, if the EU directive comes into force, the quality of silver and other precious metal products will be diminished because a lower quantity of silver will be allowable in such products than is allowable at present?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that that issue will be affected. In all cases products will be marked with the amount of fineness in them. Therefore, I do not believe that lower quality products will come into the country because of that directive. We are concerned with distinguishing the basis of the quality control or hallmarking.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, under British hallmarking, do we not have 92.5 per cent silver in products, whereas, under the EU directive, products will contain only 80 per cent pure silver?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that a system already exists whereby products containing different standards of silver can come in with different amounts of fineness in them.

Transatlantic Aviation Rights

Lord Brabazon of Tara: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to take any action following the decision of the American cargo airline FedEx to cancel flights to Prestwick.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the decision of FedEx to cancel its daily Memphis-Prestwick-Paris service within a year of its inauguration will have disappointed all those who had believed that the airline was making a genuine commitment to Scotland. However, although it is not for the Government to question the logic of the company's decision, I am confident that Prestwick will commend itself to competing cargo carriers intent on developing the market.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am as disappointed as he is that FedEx has decided to pull out. Is it not embarrassing for the Government, having given a unilateral gift to the Americans, for which our airlines received nothing in exchange, that FedEx should have pulled out so soon after commencing the service? Perhaps I can quote the Minister who said that that was,
	"a gesture of goodwill which will see FedEx on our side in their attempts to try and woo the American position because our main priority as we have stressed is still to get the rights for British carriers in the United States".
	Can the Minister say precisely what progress was made a couple of weeks ago in talks with the United States Government on aviation rights? How long did those talks last? What can we hope to achieve from them?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the rationale behind the Government's original decision was eminently sensible. FedEx's decision to invest in the service promised to deliver benefits to the airport and to Scotland. The decision calls into question not only the regional economic benefits that would have come from the service, but also FedEx's commitment to Prestwick, given that the prize that FedEx really sought was fifth freedom rights from Stansted. I believe that we are now entitled to speculate on whether they would have closed their Prestwick operations in any event if and when rights at Stansted were granted. Certainly the company's tenuous commitment to Prestwick tends to support that pessimistic speculation.
	In terms of what influence the company brought to bear on the United States Government, it had offered, as others have done, to use its best endeavours to try to bring the Government round to seeing that our policy of liberalisation was preferable to the policy of "open skies" advocated by the Americans. In conducting any negotiations I was always mindful that I had been warned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the phrase "open skies" means one thing to us and something different to the Americans. As far as the noble Lord was concerned, it would mean that ownership and control, cabotage, wet leasing, the instruction for American state employees to "fly America" and so forth would all be taken into account in any dealings that we had. Indeed, that was never far from our minds.
	We believe that we have shown a flexibility and willingness to help the Americans to solve their problems. However, they still deny our carriers the rights that they demand for theirs.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, given the disappointing news about the FedEx decision to withdraw from Prestwick, will the Minister comment on the general strength of our aviation relationship with the United States? In particular, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Americans are behaving as unreasonably as they appear to be?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, since the early 1990s the United Kingdom has promoted full liberalisation in transatlantic aviation. We have been willing to help the United States to solve their problems with flights from Pittsburgh to London. Over a number of years, compared with the United States, we have been far more willing to act; for instance, to enable Virgin to operate a service to Las Vegas we have made a number of proposals that would allow it to operate a Pittsburgh-London service--only to be castigated for intransigence and unhelpfulness. However, we remain willing to work for a balanced deal.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in future will the Minister enter into only reciprocal agreements, combined with long-term commitments? What success was there in gaining wet lease access by UK carriers into the US market?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we had a limited response to the suggestion that our carriers may be allowed the same kind of freedoms that the Americans have in the United Kingdom and in Europe. A suggestion was made that our carriers should be able to fly into America under wet leasing arrangements, but after arriving their hire would be restricted. That was not an attractive proposition for us. We believe that we must show flexibility and willingness, but we must also assume that any deal must be a balanced deal.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his last comment about showing flexibility merely suggests to some noble Lords that once more he will go down the path of giving a concession without getting one in return, and that that applies as much to the important aspects of freight carriage as it does to passenger transport? On a wider matter, will he agree that it is time to start talking to the Americans, who have the largest airline market in the world, on a Europe-to-America basis rather than on a UK-to-US basis which always puts us at a disadvantage as we are a much smaller operator?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, our belief is that we should not give any concessions to the United States unless there is a balanced deal. We shall weigh the merits of any proposed deal to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom aviation industry, its consumers and the UK economy are taken fully into account.
	On the point of giving the Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States, the Transport Council of the European Union remains to be persuaded that it should grant the Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States. In the United Kingdom, our position has not changed. We do not believe that effective bilateral negotiations could proceed simultaneously with community-level talks. Our priority has been, and still is, bilateral negotiations with the United States.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, has the Minister any information on whether reports that American officials are seeking to ban British Airways Concorde flights across the Atlantic are true? If they are true, what attitude are the British Government taking in the face of that threat?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government view any threat to abrogate treaty obligations as a potentially serious development. Of course, it would be possible to take proportionate retaliatory action. I hope that the United States Government will recognise that such action would be bad for consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, did I detect at least a slight note of optimism in the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, regarding prospects at Prestwick? Does he envisage the possibility that another cargo carrier may come into Prestwick?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the decision of any employer to suspend operations in a particular location is always bad news if that results in lost jobs. In this case the number of jobs that may be lost at Prestwick is 17. In the light of the growth that that airport has displayed recently, we are confident that in future the attractions of Prestwick will be shared by others in the industry. I am hopeful that other air freight carriers will take advantage in the near future of the fifth freedoms that are still extant at Prestwick.

Rural Areas: Access to Services

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What importance they place on access to services when measuring the quality of life in rural areas.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we realise that access to services is an important component of quality of life in rural areas. The Government featured that both in the sustainable development strategy published in May 1999 and as one of the core set of sustainable development indicators in Quality of life counts published in December. The rural White Paper, which will be published later this year, will set out the Government's approach to ensuring reasonable access to services in rural areas.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that there is some confusion on the part of the Government between quality of life indicators and minimum standards of access for service delivery? Perhaps it was that confusion which led the Prime Minister last week to say that the quality of life of elderly people in rural areas was quite rosy because they lived longer, ignoring the fact that in rural areas 92 per cent of parishes have no daycare facilities and many have no GP or daily bus service. That confusion means that rural communities do not know what standard of access to expect. Does the Minister feel that developing a minimum standard of access would be helpful so that we have factual rather than emotive replies to questions concerning rural areas?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the balance of the quality of life in rural areas is a complex matter, as it is in urban areas. There are minimum standards in relation to some social services and it is quite clear that there are real problems of access for elderly people and others in rural areas. The remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister related to the general standard of living and well-being comparing rural with urban areas, but recognised at the same time that there are huge disparities in both. Many people in rural areas experience real problems with access, low incomes and a poor quality of life. Any rural policy White Paper will need to address those complexities.

Baroness Hogg: My Lords, will the Minister explain why in distributing local government grant the Government do not pay due attention to population sparcity, despite the explicit recommendation of their expert advisers that they should do so?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, geographical disparity is one of a number of criteria. Local indicators of deprivation and other factors are being developed which include that criterion. That will feed forward in relation to local government finance. Of course, there are a huge number of other criteria. One may particularly favour rural areas, but others will favour urban areas. Again, there is no simple answer to the balance of distribution of services.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that one of the measures of quality of life in rural areas is the provision of police services? Having been a village bobby many years ago, I fully appreciate that resources do not permit the level of coverage that we used to have in villages, but will my noble friend encourage chief constables to provide police surgeries in villages from time to time, perhaps with mobile police stations? Not only will that provide reassurance to the community, but it will also be an invaluable source of intelligence about rural crime.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, without wishing to interfere in the operational decisions of chief constables in my noble friend's area or anywhere else, we need to look at innovative ways to ensure greater access in rural areas to advice and support from the public services, including policing, which have been cut in recent years. I welcome the police force, and other public services, looking at those aspects.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that out-of-hours medical services will not be cut in rural areas? Does he agree that if that happened, it would put elderly and disabled people in a dangerous position?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health indicated that we want not only to maintain services, but also to improve access to services. Again, however, it may be that in certain respects more innovative access to health services may be particularly appropriate in rural areas; for example, NHS Direct may play a major role in that respect.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, what importance do the Government attach to the retention of post offices, usually associated with a village shop, in terms of the quality of life in rural areas?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the presence of, and the distance the average citizen has to travel to, a post office are part of the criteria forming our general indicators. The Government are committed to maintaining a network of rural post offices.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that "services", within the meaning of the Question, include benefit offices? Is he aware that there is a case in Somerset, not one of the most remote areas in the land, of a single parent having to pay £6 in bus fares every time she visits the benefit office? Does he agree that more cases like that may make pressure for an increase in benefit levels irresistible and teach the Treasury--not for the first time--that economy is a very expensive habit?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that there will be difficulties of access to benefit offices but in a sense there always were, and rationalisation of the provision of benefit is bound to create a few problems. Again, the question of access to benefits and to the services of the Department of Social Security could be addressed more effectively in rural areas by more innovative approaches. Of course, in many of the areas of delivery of social security benefits, the Post Office plays an important part.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred in passing to the index of local deprivation, which I understand is being reviewed at present by a bunch of assorted academics from Oxford University. I understand that one of the reasons why there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of London districts which are contained within the top 65 deprived areas is this issue of access to local services. Does my noble friend acknowledge not only that the data backing up those changes should be published, but also that it does not make a great deal of sense to compare very different areas in the country and then try to produce one composite index of deprivation?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, these issues are complex. Nevertheless, it is important to be able to measure one form of deprivation against another, as long as one understands the context of the components of that index. My noble friend is right. However, the people to whom he refers as a "bunch of academics from Oxford", I refer to as "eminent independent advisers". The basis of that index is out for consultation. I have no doubt that my noble friend's colleagues in London will have comments on it, as will those from rural areas.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 12, after ("statutory") insert ("or standing").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Clause 1(4) opens up a range of committees and the amendment seeks to protect all persons who might be drawn, perhaps inadvertently, into membership of ad hoc committees or who are inveigled or elected to serve thereon. The subsection could expose Ministers, chairmen and deputy chairmen who might want to serve on the Northern Ireland Select Committee or Grand Committee.
	There is a degree of overlap and vagueness in the Bill. I refer, in particular to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who currently serve on such committees by virtue of being elected to the other place. There should be no room for doubt in the interests of those who, perhaps through ignorance, might breach the law as enforced by the Bill.
	On the wider question of Northern Ireland Committees, I suggest, as a contribution to avoiding or filling the dreaded vacuum in Northern Ireland, that it might be a good idea to encourage the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to meet more frequently--as required by law. It has not been fulfilling its potential for two or three years, although that is no reflection on any party. That committee can have up to six meetings per year but, disappointingly, it has not met since last summer. Meetings of the Grand Committee would be a way of making people in Northern Ireland of all parties and creeds feel that they were not being neglected or forgotten.
	Membership of the Grand Committee is open to all elected representatives who have taken their seats, so there are good grounds for assuming that they will continue to work together, as they did when they met more frequently. That would in itself do much to reassure the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that we can rely on the Minister to use his considerable influence to remove what appears to be a blockage in the usual channels and thereafter to ensure that meetings of the Grand Committee are restored to their authorised frequency.
	The Northern Ireland Select Committee was established in the face of a good deal of opposition, mainly from the Northern Ireland Office. Its remit was faulty and still is. Like the Grand Committee, the Select Committee was encouraged to range over all Stormont departments, thereby duplicating the scrutiny and other excellent work done by United Kingdom government departments. Trade and industry is one example. The first excursion by members of the Northern Ireland Select Committee was to Korea to consider how exports to that country from the United Kingdom might be improved. That issue was being tackled from another angle by the Department of Trade and Industry, resulting in unnecessary duplication of effort.
	It was my responsibility to spearhead the campaign for the Select Committee. My proposed terms of reference, which I tabled at 10 every morning that the other place was sitting, were:
	"There shall be a Northern Ireland Select Committee to scrutinise the decisions of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for which there is no counterpart in Great Britain".
	I lost that battle. Consequently, successive Secretaries of State were deprived of the opportunity to meet Members of your Lordships' House and benefit from advice and assistance on matters that could not be touched upon by any other committee--such as law, policing, security and constitutional issues. I am not suggesting that we should invite the other place to amend meaningless terms of reference that it has operated for several years, but noble Lords might consider the formation of a Select Committee of their own on the terms originally proposed. I am convinced that such a committee would provide the Secretary of State with the means of valuable contact with your Lordships now that the House of Lords is rapidly acquiring a legitimacy that allegedly did not exist until a few months ago. I beg to move.

Lord Smith of Clifton: I join the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in his amendment--partly because it is identical to one introduced by one of my honourable friends in another place. The purpose of this simple amendment is consistency, so that all who hold office in the Assembly are treated equally.
	The Bill allows some committee chairs to perform their functions without their committees. Clause 1(3) states that no committee of the Assembly,
	"is to hold a meeting or conduct any business",
	during a suspension. However, subsection (4) states that only the chair or deputy chair of statutory committees will not continue to hold office. In effect, the chair and deputy chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Procedures Committee, Committee of the Centre, Audit Committee and Public Accounts Committee can continue to carry out their functions without their committees being able to meet to discuss the issues and without chairs and deputy chairs being able to take account of the opinions of their committee members, which seems illogical and indefensible.
	In the other place, the Minister focused on the role of the chair within the committee, but there is nothing to hinder the chair continuing his work with the clerk to his committee and external bodies. The chair of the Audit Committee, for example, routinely meets with the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Failure to suspend the chairs of standing committees means that it will not possible for certain elements of the Assembly to continue working through suspension. Is that what the Government intend?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment would ensure that the chairman and deputy chairman of all committees of the Assembly would cease to hold office during suspension, not just the chairman and deputy chairman of statutory committees. I hope to offer both noble Lords reassurance that will go some way to allaying their concerns.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out that Clause 1(3) makes it clear that no committees of the Assembly can meet or conduct any business during suspension. That includes statutory and all other committees. All Assembly committees, statutory or standing, will cease to function for the duration of the suspension. Subsection (4) deals only with individuals who hold statutory office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, just as Clause 3 deals with their reappointment in line with the provisions of that Act.
	The Bill does not address the various non-statutory appointments such as the chairmen of standing committees. Nevertheless, they too will cease to exercise any of their functions during a suspension because their committees cannot meet and conduct any business. While emphasising that the suspension provisions in Clause 1 will impact on all committees of the Assembly, I express the hope, on the basis of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	I should like to deal with the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. As he knows, this Bill deals only with the committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It does not deal with either the committees of this Chamber or those of another place. In particular, in does not deal with the Northern Irish Select Committee or the Grand Committee.
	It is a matter for both Houses to decide the terms and frequency of the meetings of these committees. As the noble Lord implicitly acknowledges, the frequency of meetings is not affected by this legislation. With respect, I do not think that this is the appropriate place to try to deal with the points he has made. It is a matter for each individual place to decide how best to proceed. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the clarification provided by the noble and learned Lord in regard to the points made, especially those made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who may wish to say something in response. In regard to the second point, I freely acknowledge that I was pushing my luck a little and going beyond the terms of reference. However, there is a relationship here. If we can illustrate that the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is using its mechanisms to the full to look after the needs, wishes and desires of the people of Northern Ireland, it will be much easier to find a solution and an end to the vacuum. That is why I ventured to go a little wider than I should have done. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord but renew my appeal that he should use his very considerable influence to ensure that something is done to restore those committees to their former operational efficiency. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hylton: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would feel able to accept at the next stage of the Bill a small amendment to Clause l(3), simply adding at the end the words,
	"save that the Secretary of State may enable them to meet in a consultative role".
	That wording would meet the point I endeavoured to raise yesterday on Second Reading, to which the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to reply in responding to the debate.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is a novel way to propose an amendment by asking, "What about thinking about this wording at the next stage?" I dealt with this matter on the last occasion. I said then that the reason why the suspension is being considered is to allow a breathing space because of where we are in relation to the process in Northern Ireland. As I said at the time, Clause 1 prevents the Assembly meeting or conducting any business during a suspension. That means it will not be able to function in a shadow or consultative mode. The Bill is not about providing an alternative role for the Assembly; it is about providing a complete breathing space to allow people to focus their energies on resolving the current difficulties. In the light of that, I am not in a position to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.

Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Ending suspension]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).
	The noble Lord: For the sake of convenience Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been grouped together. I made clear yesterday that my reservation with this subsection is solely in connection with the word "review". I note that in earlier copies of the Bill--this is not just a niggling point; it is something that has puzzled many of us--the clause was printed in italics. The italics have now been dropped. I wonder whether they were intended to give a degree of prominence to that wording in another place, or whether the earlier version was drafted in haste. I suggest that it was somewhat unusual, but I shall not press the point.
	I expressed the hope yesterday that it is not the intention to inflict upon the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland another dose of summitry which would be destructive of what little stability remains. American-style summitry--involving, as it does, the isolation of the participants and starving them of nourishment and sleep--is always welcomed by the news industry. However, the process invariably leads to the downfall of leaders and, on occasions, governments. Instead of dramatic summitry, I suggest that we need a period of reflection. Then we need a thorough examination of the mechanisms of devolution against the background of yesterday's turmoil in Wales and the Scottish "hot-pot" bubbling away nicely, soon to overflow.
	Having been present during nearly all the debates on devolution in this Chamber concerning all three parts of the United Kingdom--indeed, four if we count London--it was, and is, clear to me that the problems are not really understood. Regrettably, Parliament has condoned or ignored certain facts of life. We certainly ignored the fact that the Stormont experiment had no counterpart anywhere in this world and that its flaws and unworkability made collapse almost inevitable. I can think of no nation that requires every party to be involved in cabinet or executive and where, if any one element withdraws, the whole structure collapses. Surely we can do better than that. I repeat my plea for modest beginnings.
	I was greatly encouraged by the words of Mr George Howarth, the Northern Ireland Minister in the other place, who said on 8th February:
	"Right hon. and hon. Members can envisage circumstances in which some talks would need to take place away from the public gaze. In the past, some talks between parties have taken place in a way that protected the participants and allowed them the space to decide in which direction to move".--[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/00; col. 202.]
	I believe we are entitled to assume that those wise words of a junior Minister represent the views of his fellow Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and also--dare I suggest it?--the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government in general. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I listened with care to the remarks he made. If I interpret the amendments correctly, they would effectively break with the Belfast agreement and could lead to its suspension. I have to point out that all the way through this process my party has linked with the Government in believing in the Belfast agreement and supporting all those who worked for it. We certainly could not countenance any alteration or amendment to the Bill that would endanger the Belfast agreement.

Lord Smith of Clifton: On behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may concur with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Glentoran.

Lord Hylton: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, is trying to achieve with these amendments. It is possible that they are just a probe. I am not quite clear as to their intention. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has drawn attention to an important point; namely, that the fullest possibly dialogue should proceed in parallel with any review. I say that because dialogue between citizens, politicians and members of parties is, I believe, capable of changing attitudes. Changing attitudes is extremely important for the generation of trust that we all know has been somewhat lacking. That is why I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State will do their very best to promote dialogue at all levels whether or not there is a review going on.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister had noticed that I would be raising an issue at this stage rather than at the further reading because I think it is the time for it to be considered, and it is relevant.
	I was not clear yesterday exactly what the two governments expected to review and under whose chairmanship they would do it. I am clear that if the Government has taken us up to the wire, purports to intend to call Sinn Fein/IRA's bluff and to challenge them to make good their implicit commitments, then they should not be offering yet another sop to Cerberus at this late stage that would commit Her Majesty's Government to fall short in its duty to defend the people of Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom whose people, by a substantial majority, voted to stay within the United Kingdom.
	In the debate yesterday I referred to the possibility of tacit deals that might be proposed to equate the paramilitary arms with those of the regular forces and to lower our defences. I pointed out then that when the IRA speak of the issue of arms they are speaking about the armed forces of the Crown and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, not decommissioning their own paramilitary arms.
	Press reports today suggest--and this is the point on which I should like the view of the noble Lord the Minister--that the Irish Government, in its usual helpful and generous way, is to propose a plan which would involve significant demilitarisation measures by the British in Northern Ireland. By a curious coincidence, Gerry Adams has also been talking about demilitarisation. He is usually aware of what is happening. It is also reported that any initiative from the Republican Movement will be strictly conditional on demilitarisation and the continuation of the new institutions.
	The courageous decision, in which I found so much to praise yesterday, may prove to be yet another fudge, purporting to suspend the institutions and appearing to bring a minute amount of pressure to bear on Sinn Fein/IRA, but with both sides knowing that the decision to suspend the institutions is only a manoeuvre and that there is yet another deal under the table designed to give Sinn Fein/IRA yet more, in return for what?
	Can the Minister tell us what is the position? I recognise that negotiations are secret and have to be carried on behind the scenes. But since they are creeping out of every crevice of the Irish Times and our own press, I think that we are entitled to have a view; and I did give the Minister notice that I would want it.
	I should like to know how the Government propose to justify dismantling defences in IRA "country" in South Armagh and withdrawing forces from a part of Britain while the situation is not, and cannot possibly be considered to be, normal. I have no doubt that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence will be delighted for their own different reasons, such as severe overstretch in the army. It will be nothing short of disgraceful to offer Sinn Fein/IRA yet one more major act of appeasement. I should not be at all surprised if this--combined with the determination of the Government to proceed also to emasculate the Royal Ulster Constabulary to appease a tiny violent minority--will be the last straw for most of the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government have reflected very carefully on that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall first deal with the preliminary point about the italics which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, raised. It is customary in another place for provisions which may incur financial expenditure to be printed in italics. Clearly, if and when a review is put in place, there will be associated costs. That was the only reason for the print being in italics.
	The essence of Amendments 2 and 3 that we are taking together is to remove the requirement for a review. Suspension will come into effect only if it becomes clear that the political institutions no longer carry cross-community support and confidence. If that is, indeed, the case and the institutions are suspended, it will be essential that we bring the process back on track to a process of discussion and negotiations; in other words, a review. This was recognised during the negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday Agreement. That is why there is a whole section entitled "Validation, Implementation and Review". If suspension occurred without being followed by a review we could find ourselves in a dangerous political vacuum that could lead to the destruction of everything on which we have been working for so long. It would almost certainly cause the end of the Good Friday Agreement. I think it is that view that has led the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, to express the views that they have in this debate.
	As has often been said, here and in another place, this legislation is not intended to suspend the agreement. It is intended to save the agreement. I am convinced that it is only through the twin proposal of suspension followed by review that we can reach a positive outcome, not by suspension alone. Consequently, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
	I deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. There have been articles in the Irish Times yesterday and other newspapers today. I make our position clear. The onus is on the paramilitaries to provide parity on whether, how and when they will decommission. All our efforts with the Irish Government are directed to achieving that. Security measures are determined by the level of threat. As the threat reduces, we will make progress on normalisation. We have already published a paper setting out our strategy for doing so.
	There is no equivalent between security measures and the decommissioning of arms that we seek. In relation to security measures we act on the professional advice of the chief constable. We are determined not to relax our guard. The safety of the public is absolutely paramount. Decommissioning is essential because illegal arms, even if not used, are part of the threat. Substantive and verifiable decommissioning would have an impact on the overall level of threat alongside other important factors. I repeat that security measures are determined by the level of threat. We act on the professional advice of the chief constable.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry to intervene at this point. I just wanted to agree with and support what the Minister has said about the level of threat and the rumours that are in the newspapers today and were in the Irish Times yesterday. It is extremely important that security measures involving both police and the army are solely determined by the level of threat. After all, Irvinestown has reminded us once again, although we needed no reminding, that the threat does not come only from those who belong to the larger and better known paramilitary organisations but potentially, increasingly, from break-away movements of one kind or another. It is the threat from them, just as much as from any of the larger organisations, that has to be taken into account by the Secretary of State and his security advisers in deciding when to reduce any security measures that there are, including troop numbers and everything else. That has always been the policy, and I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that it is still so.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I felt that I had made it abundantly clear in my opening words that the one target word in that sub-section was the word "review". I did not mention anything likely to be destructive of the Belfast agreement. I know that we used to be told in former times--last year and the year before--that the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" or vice versa would unravel the whole agreement, none of which I believed. That was the kind of theology. It was that word "review" to which I took exception and which I made clear I regarded as highly dangerous. I should have perhaps suggested the word "amendment" or "consultations". I did try to make it clear that on occasions when we have had these high-wire acts in the way of reviews, cameras and the law, ambushing everybody as they come in and out, putting their own slant and interpretation on what has been said, that was quite frankly destructive of any peaceful way forward. I derive some comfort from the fact that I am in line with the junior Minister in another place. I quoted the words to the Committee. I do hope that he will not be accused by certain Members of the Committee here of trying to destroy the Belfast agreement. In the light of the curious reaction I have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
	Page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: A study of the Northern Ireland Act 1998--which, after all, is the governing Act at the moment--reveals that only two years ago we asked why--

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that we have yet to come to Clause 3. This is Amendment No. 3.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Effect of restoration]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert--
	("(2) Sections 16 to 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (relating to the election of the first minister and deputy first minister, the determination and filling of ministerial offices and the appointment of junior ministers) shall apply.".).

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the correction, as I had indicated that I was discussing Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together as they are grouped together on the groupings list.
	Given that so much study was devoted to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 during its progress through this Chamber only two years ago, we have to ask why what we approved without even a Division--namely, the complicated mechanism for appointing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister--has now been largely set aside by Clause 3 of the Bill before us. One can understand the desire to avoid delay in appointing, or perhaps reappointing, those two senior Ministers. However, in the likely event of the period of suspension--renewed or otherwise--lasting for perhaps a year, does it not seem likely that the situation, including the political situation, may have changed to such an extent that the original mandate of one or both of those two Ministers will be no longer sustainable? In that situation, would it not be prudent for those two senior Ministers to be reinstated to begin with in designate form and thereafter to seek a renewed mandate in the form of fresh internal elections in the Assembly, perhaps after a period of four weeks?
	I understand that in another place a junior Minister took the line that any election during or immediately after suspension would be, to use his words, a very delicate matter. It might be said that Ministers had foreseen the events in the Welsh Assembly yesterday and those which may yet occur in the Scottish Parliament. All of us who have had to submit ourselves to election may feel that all elections are delicate matters, particularly in a marginal constituency. It is not clear whether the juggling between Section 16 of the 1998 Act and Clause 3 of the Bill perpetuates the requirement for a kind of joint departure of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; in other words, if one goes, the other must go. One might call that a kind of legislative suicide pact. In the light of yesterday's confusion in Wales, is it possible that there is now a need for a rethink, not to damage the sacred agreement but simply to clarify the rules governing present and future mechanisms within the Assembly? I believe that it would be disastrous if, following a restoration, there was confusion and chaos on the first day back. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: Once again, I regret to say that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment. It seems to me that if suspension occurs (whatever the period of time it takes for democracy to be restored), it would be less than just after all the work, the negotiations, the effort and leadership of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister--Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon, respectively--that they should not resume their posts when democracy is restored. If, as the noble Lord suggests, their mandate has run out, surely the democratic processes will take their own natural course within the Assembly and within the Province, and new elections will follow in the normal way. I believe that it is absolutely right that when democracy is restored after a suspension, those in post should remain there until the democratic processes of the system decide otherwise. As I say, we cannot support the amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On Tuesday in another place my right honourable friend Mr Mandelson, set out the rationale behind the Bill. He made it clear that the intention was to suspend the institutions in order to create a temporary pause, a breathing space, in which a short review could take place, after which a restoration order could be made.
	Fundamentally, the enabling power in this Bill will suspend only the operation of the institutions. The institutions themselves will remain intact. In particular, the Assembly will not be collapsed or dissolved. Similarly, members of the Executive and the First and Deputy First Ministers are not being permanently discharged. Their functions will simply be exercised, for a temporary period, by the Secretary of State. A restoration order will then return all of the institutions intact to the point before suspension took place. Clause 3 has been drafted to allow a smooth, uncomplicated and swift return to devolution.
	If Clause 3 were drafted in the way proposed by the noble Lord, in effect one would have to have new elections for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister--and that would suggest that the suspension was intended to be a long-term proposition, which it is not. In addition, it might suggest some permanency that would be damaging to the process of building the trust and confidence which are necessary for the restoration of the institutions.
	The vast majority here and in another place have expressed their disappointment at the need to present this Bill. These views are based on the fact that most people want to see the Good Friday agreement work. They want to see power successfully devolved to Northern Ireland. They do not want to see a return to direct rule. The Government are in total agreement with those views. That is why, instead of dissolving the institutions and repealing the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we are putting arrangements in place to allow for what we hope will be a short suspension. It would not be conducive to a swift and positive return to devolution to have to re-establish the Assembly from scratch after suspension. It would not help to create stability; it would have the opposite effect. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's response. I can only hope that the obvious conflict between the 1998 Act and the present Bill will not, when the Assembly is eventually restored, cause the whole operation to end in chaos and tears yet again. I hope that the gentle warnings that I have given may at least enable some consideration to be given to the possibility that the experts may not be entirely right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Orders made under this Act: supplemental provision]:

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 3, line 17, leave out ("(except one under Section 9(2))").

Lord Smith of Clifton: The premise on which this amendment is based is to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes an order to suspend the Assembly, it must be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This is an enabling Bill which, as I said at Second Reading, gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State. It gives him the ability to suspend the Assembly at any time without any further requirement to consult Parliament or to make a Statement.
	Yet Parliament has to pass an order to allow power to be restored. That seems to be somewhat illogical. The Act, as it will be, does not have to be used now or at the weekend. In future there may be very different circumstances and the Act would be used without any consideration of the matter being given by Parliament. It is an extremely broad and sweeping power that is being given to the Secretary of State. It may have very serious implications. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has just said. Obviously, it is extremely important that the order which sets the suspension in motion should be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Sadly, that is not how I read his amendment. It appears to mean that the Act would not come into force, and would not become available to the Secretary of State, unless there had been approved a draft of such an order by both Houses of Parliament. There would have to be a subsequent order and another pair of approvals in order to set the suspension in motion. I do not believe that is desirable.
	It would be unusual to require an affirmative resolution simply for the bringing into force of the Act. Secondly, it may delay permission being given for the actual suspension owing to the necessity of having two measures of approval, one for the Act itself and the other for the resolution. Therefore, while agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, I cannot agree to the amendment as I read it.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I cannot support the amendment. Last week the Secretary of State himself in another place had a timetable in mind. He seemed to suggest that, with everyone's co-operation, the Bill could complete all its stages in both Houses and receive Royal Assent at a given time, followed by commencement, in his view, almost automatically. That seemed to be what he had in mind. I believe that is desirable.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Through his amendment the noble Lord seeks to provide that the commencement order bringing this Act into effect should be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny and approval. Although the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raised questions about its efficacy, I understand that he supports the principle. Although I understand the reasons for moving the amendment, I believe that it is inappropriate.
	It is customary for the power to make a commencement order not to be subject to parliamentary approval. In giving its approval to this Bill the House will, with regret, I believe, be giving my right honourable friend in another place authority to suspend devolved government. He has made it clear that he will act on that authority by the end of this week if clear and credible progress has not been made on decommissioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, has said. That is the reality of the position. To be required to return to the House within days for further approval is neither sensible nor appropriate.
	Members of the Committee may also wish to note, first, that the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which considered these matters, has given the legislation a clean bill of health. Secondly, subsequent restoration and revocation orders under the Bill, should it become law, would require parliamentary approval. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton: I accept the impeccable logic of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and consequential amendment]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 4, line 11, at end insert ("within 24 hours of Royal Assent").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I risk repeating what I said a few minutes ago. In another place the Secretary of State expressed the expectation and hope that the Bill would complete all its stages. He also said that he hoped that it would receive Royal Assent before the end of this week. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, that is the normal custom for a Bill as important as this, and that any commencement should not be delayed in any way by reference to any other bodies at any other level.
	As a loyal subject, I would not presume to anticipate Her Majesty's decision. Therefore, my amendment is designed to ensure that the commencement follows closely on receiving Royal Assent. It suggests a round figure of 24 hours after Royal Assent. But in view of the deterioration in confidence within Northern Ireland and all the rumours, reports, forecasts and so forth, I suggest that, subject to the Royal Prerogative, the commencement announcement could be made perhaps as early as 12 noon tomorrow. We certainly should not allow the situation to drift over the weekend: that would be absolutely disastrous. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I have some sympathy with this amendment but, after considerable thought, I believe it is best to leave the Secretary of State with maximum flexibility as to when he operates the suspension, if indeed he has to. However, I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, as regards the suspension being sooner rather than later if the deterioration continues, according to the press and one thing and another. We must not forget that the Ulster Unionist Party conference meets on Saturday. The First Minister, David Trimble, will be in serious trouble by then if we have not got either the product or the process has not been suspended.
	Furthermore, the people attending that meeting will come from right across the Province. If they have not heard in due time of the suspension and arrive in the knowledge that it has not happened, there could be considerable difficulties in getting the decision that we want from them. I am being very practical and recommend to the Government that if suspension is seen to be necessary--I still hope that it will not--it is made in adequate time to be announced in Northern Ireland on the six o'clock news.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that a prompt decision is made as to when suspension should take effect, particularly as it is such a major step. But as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, the effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make a commencement order within such a short timescale thereby negating the flexibility of allowing an order to be made in the first place.
	In practice, this amendment to the Bill would not allow my right honourable friend in another place to take account of any developments that occur before the Bill receives Royal Assent or even just after that. I am sure that the Committee is aware of the rapid changes that can occur in the political process in Northern Ireland, particularly the propensity for developments at the eleventh hour. We must not assume, even at this late stage, that commencement will be necessary. Indeed, many of us hope that there will be enough progress so that suspension is no longer needed.
	Equally, the Government must be able to react quickly to preserve the progress that has been made so far and to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland. Assurances have been given, both here and in another place, that those developments must occur by the end of the week or devolved government will be suspended.
	Emphasising again that the amendment will require the Secretary of State to trigger suspension of the devolved institutions even if the political context did not warrant it, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his qualified support of the amendment. I am grateful to him also for issuing a little reminder of certain crucial timetables and crucial meetings taking place in the early part of the weekend, which I was too timid to mention.
	I understand the constitution and niceties of these matters. I hope that, at least, the amendment and what has been said in support of it will be taken on board by the Secretary of State--sensitive, as he always is, to the possibility of dangers and troubles further down the road. I am confident that we can leave the matter to his judgment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Schedule [Provisions Applicable During Suspension]:

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 8, line 5, after ("may") insert ("by order").

Lord Smith of Clifton: In moving Amendment No. 7 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10.
	We all hope that this will be a short suspension but, were it not to be, these amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to review his decision on the payment of Assembly members every six months. Before devolution, there was a great deal of controversy about the level of payment of Assembly members. That was exacerbated further by the salaries they voted themselves when devolution took place. To allow any public suspicion in Northern Ireland that payments will be carried on over an extended period would be most unfortunate.
	There is no political advantage in arguing for the retention of Assembly members' wages if there is little or no work being carried out. I envisage that if the Assembly is still in suspension after six months and no serious attempts have been made to resolve the impasse--we still do not know what the Government will do by way of review--it would be useful if the public could be assured that Assembly members' wages will not be continued ad infinitum without a check. I hope it will not be necessary for the amendment--should it be incorporated in the Bill--to be implemented, but I think it would be a reassurance to public opinion that this will not be another process of delay with payment. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation of his amendments. Whether or not intended, the effect of the amendments would be that the Secretary of State would have power under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to vary Assembly members' salaries; however, he would not have power to stop salaries altogether without making an order which would be subject to approval by Parliament. Furthermore, such an order would lapse after six months unless replaced by a further one.
	The approach currently set out in the Bill is more appropriate. This transfers to my right honourable friend in another place the relevant functions currently exercised by the Assembly. He will have discretion to vary or stop salaries as appropriate. I am confident that he will discharge this responsibility carefully and with all due consideration. It would not significantly enhance the interests of either Assembly members, Members of this Parliament or your Lordships to introduce a further element into this process. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his assurances. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 8, line 5, after ("salaries") insert ("or allowances").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It is not my intention to inflict hardship on members or Ministers of the Assembly but to clarify beyond doubt the position in regard to subventions from public funds to opposition parties. As it stands, the position is very vague. This issue is relevant because I believe that within the framework of the Assembly a committee--perhaps a finance committee or a body of that kind--is studying how it might benefit from what is called "Short" money--a name derived from its introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, the Leader of the House of Commons in the Wilson government, and a very good friend of many of us on this side of the House.
	As leader of a party at that time, I was involved in the discussions. I can certify that the grants were designed to assist opposition parties in Parliament to employ staff and to increase their efficiency in dealing with legislation and related matters. I have reason to believe that the committee at work--it may not, at the moment, be formally at work--in the Stormont Assembly has been in touch with its Edinburgh and Cardiff counterparts. It is important that during this period of suspension--this vacuum, whatever one wants to call it--a gentle word of advice is given to the three Assemblies to ensure that they do not build up false expectations.
	I am not seeking to deprive the back-benchers in any of those Assemblies of assistance if Parliament so decides, but the rules of the Short money scheme clearly define the fund as being available to assist opposition parties. Surely that means that a second party in coalition with another party could not benefit, even in an assembly. I do not see how it could be accepted in regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly because the parties are all in a compulsory coalition; there are no opposition parties.
	I seek to issue a good-natured word of caution for them not to build up their expectations or, worse still, to make plans for lavish expenditure, in the belief that somehow or other the scheme will be applied to them. In those circumstances, it should be made clear that Short money can be paid only to opposition parties and not to a coalition of parties, some of which are in government. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, did not speak to Amendment No. 9 and I shall deal with that amendment after he has moved it.
	The effect of Amendment No. 8 would be to allow the Secretary of State to determine allowances as well as salaries at zero. Paragraph 9(2) of the Schedule was included because the power transferred to the Secretary of State to determine salaries under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is such that the Secretary of State would be able only to vary salaries, not to withdraw them altogether. While no decisions have yet been taken on those matters, it is right that the Secretary of State should be given full discretion.
	The scope for the Secretary of State to determine the allowances payable to Assembly members is much greater and he already has discretion to withdraw all allowances under the present statutory provision in Section 48 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998. Consequently, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. I should point out that Sections 47 and 48 of the Act deal with the payment of salaries and allowances to individuals. They do not deal with the payment of moneys to parties, which is to what I believe the noble Lord was referring when he mentioned "Short" money. I am not sure that either Clause 9(2) or Section 47 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998 touch the issue he raised.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I agree that the Short money would not be in the terms of the Bill as printed, but under the 1998 Act that did not stop the Finance Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly from exploring, I understand, in company with its Scottish and Welsh counterparts, the possibility of making an application--I presume to the other end of the building--for access to the Short money. It was to avoid any embarrassment that I tabled the amendment. I shall therefore withdraw it and I shall not move the other amendment in my name to ensure that there is no distinction between members of the Assembly and Ministers in the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments No. 9 and 10 not moved.]
	Schedule agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
	Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th February), Bill read a third time.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that inescapable duties prevented me from hearing the Second Reading debate. I realise that I must not now make a Second Reading speech, but I hope that a brief Third Reading speech may be permissible.
	I have, of course, had the advantage of reading in Hansard yesterday's Second Reading debate here and that in another place. I do not see how the Secretary of State could possibly have avoided bringing forward the Bill in the light of such information as is in the public domain, any more than I see how, on the basis of such information, the Secretary of State can avoid bringing in the order implementing the suspension of the institutions forthwith.
	I take issue with the Explanatory Notes, helpful though they are, because paragraph 3 states that,
	"the Secretary of State also indicated that should future circumstances require it"--
	referring to the Statement of 22nd November in another place--
	"the operation of the Assembly (and other institutions) could be suspended".
	The Secretary of State did not say so. In the most robust language, he said that they would be suspended. It is worth bearing in mind the language that he used:
	"However, if there is default, either in implementing, decommissioning, or indeed for that matter devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions--the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies".
	He continued,
	"Nobody should doubt my resolve to ensure that no party profits from preventing progress in all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement".--[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/99; col. 346.]
	It is clear from a reading of yesterday's debate in your Lordships' House that none of your Lordships appeared in any doubt that circumstances require the suspending of the institutions because the republicans have defaulted on decommissioning. I want to make it clear that I agree--lest anyone in any quarter should suppose that I was reluctant to be counted on that matter at this critical time--because of the collapse of confidence in the Executive and in other institutions that the default has caused, at least among the Unionists in Northern Ireland, and, I suspect, probably more widely.
	That collapse of confidence is not irrational. It derives from the fact that trust has to be at the centre of the operation of the institutions of devolution. Furthermore, a crucial expectation which Sinn Fein colluded in creating has been dashed. There is also a further reason. Genuine deliberation and, more especially, genuine compromise, are inhibited if one party refuses to give up its arsenal. Either a compromise will have been extorted by threat of force, or it will have been withheld for fear of such an accusation. Yet surely in Northern Ireland, of all places, the art of judicious compromise needs to be encouraged.
	There will be time in due course to review recent history and the Government's handling of those extremely difficult matters with the great benefit of hindsight. At this point, I do not feel disposed to criticise Her Majesty's Government for having travelled many painful extra miles--with one exception which I attacked at the time and to which it is not now necessary to allude. In my own time, I travelled some painful extra miles knowing full well the obloquy that they would attract. The consequence of the Government's extra miles at the very least has surely been this: that Sinn Fein/IRA defaulters are today in the unprecedented position of being universally seen for what they are, at least at present--that is, obstructers of the very process which they claim to support, and blackmailing obstructers at that.
	Among their resulting multifarious critics are those who have been driven to denounce even John Hume for "inappropriate" remarks--by which they mean uncongenial remarks--calling for a start to decommissioning by them. The Secretary of State rightly described that in another place as "arrogant". I am afraid that he also described it as "lordly", which your Lordships would not recognise. For that action on the part of Sinn Fein to be noted by all the world is surely not a negligible development; nor is its significance likely to be lost on Sinn Fein/IRA. They are on their own, and, I suggest, for the first time.
	I agree with the remarks made in the same vein yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Eames, and others about the need to keep doors open, not to slam them. I agree also with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, in this debate about the availability of other modes of discourse and discussion. There are ways of talking other than in the Executive and the Assembly. Those ways must continue to be taken. We should always travel in hope. But for the immediate future, the Bill must surely be passed and the implementing order made--not least because, otherwise, Northern Ireland will at once lose the leadership of two politicians in particular without whose courage and vision the huge progress noted by noble Lords in yesterday's debate would not have been made.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I indicated to the Government that I wanted to say a few words at this stage. I do not intend to go into any great detail. I have had the experience of the "treble"--of seeing three governments in Northern Ireland abolished. In 1972, I saw the wiping out of the Stormont parliament, which had been created in 1920. In 1974, I was there when the Sunningdale executive was wiped out. I then saw the abolition of the convention a few years later. Now, I am witnessing the current events.
	All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have expressed a great deal of regret. No one in this House seeks with any enthusiasm the passage of this legislation. I do so very reluctantly. But some things should be pointed out. A great deal of criticism has rightly been levelled at Sinn Fein/IRA and their refusal to decommission their arms. But when the review takes place--and I hope that it will be successful--as much consideration and pressure should be applied to the UFF, the UVF and the other loyalist so-called paramilitaries who also have a large number of lethal arms at their disposal.
	During the suspension, we are asking the IRA to decommission. The IRA are the Irish Republican Army. Without arms, they are nothing. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) is nothing without its murderous weapons. The only reason that the LVF and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) have any legitimacy in their own minds is that they have lethal arms at their disposal by which they threaten to murder those who disagree with them. So when the review takes place, the same pressure should be applied to all those organisations. If the IRA does decommission, then there will be no need: it will be voting itself out of existence. What is an army without arms? So the IRA must face the consequences--as we must. If it hands in its arms, as I passionately advise it to do, there will be no need for an Irish Republican Army. The same applies to the UVF and the other so-called "loyalist" organisations.
	I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will have made many friends among Northern Ireland Assembly members by querying their salaries. I know how sensitive the matter can be, and has been every time there has been an abolition order.
	I should like to ask an important question. During the suspension, when no meetings will be allowed at Stormont--there will be no committees--will members of the legislative assembly be able to attend as individuals? They have offices there, with their computers, word processors and various writing facilities. Will they be able to use the facilities in the building?
	We all know the symbolism of the Stormont building. In my mind I have a clear picture of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being held outside the building before they were elected as MLAs. I can readily foresee that the symbolism of the building will be used by MLAs of different political persuasions to put forward their particular point of view.
	An editorial in the Irish Times fully expresses my wish and my sentiments at this time. It was written last year, not last week. The final paragraph states:
	"The core of the decommissioning issue is no different today from what it was six months ago. No democratic system can function while some participants reserve the right indefinitely to fall back upon violence and maintain an armed force to do so. The IRA and Sinn Fein do not appear to accept this and believe they can force those who are fully-committed democrats to bend to their will".
	That last sentence is of great import to everyone at this time.
	"It would be unthinkable that the Belfast Agreement, with all it represents, should founder. But that would be a lesser price to pay than embracing the corruption which would be implicit in a surrender to such demands".
	That speaks for the vast majority of people in the island of Ireland.

Lord Patten: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We all listen carefully to what he has to say. How true his words were about the critical importance of decommissioning. For it is arms that confer legitimacy on terrorists on either side of the political divide, whether the possession of the pike in the thatch in the 18th century or the Armalite in the loft in the 21st century. The noble Lord's remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, should be listened to with great care.
	I must apologise as I, too, was unable to be present for the Second Reading debate. The same kind of inescapable duties kept me away from this House. I shall not detain your Lordships long in this debate, except to say that I hope that we shall indeed have good fortune in the next few days. If we do not, I hope that there will be a period of reflection which may lead to good fortune and the restoration of the arrangements which many in this House wish to see.
	I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that, during that period of reflection, they look and think hard about whatever Plan B it may be necessary to bring back to this House and to another place, perhaps in a few months' time. I believe that it will very soon become clear that such a plan may be necessary. I look for reassurances from the Minister that the Government are prepared to take into account the sad possibility that such a Plan B may be necessary. I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that we must travel with hope, but this House, as well as the Government, must also travel with realism.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his observations about keeping doors open and other modes of talking. It is nice to have confirmation of what I sought to say both yesterday and today from someone who bore principal responsibility for these matters for a number of years.
	This situation places a considerable responsibility on organisations such as the British-Irish Association, the Irish Association, Queen's University, Corrymeela Community and others, who did a great deal over many years to keep some kind of political dialogue going, to do the same if, as looks likely, the institutions find themselves in a state of suspension.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I refer very briefly to the routine extension of an order providing an arms amnesty to be debated by another place on Monday. In my view, there would be misunderstanding if that debate were regarded as in any way linked to our exchanges this afternoon.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we have had a long debate on this important issue. We must not lose sight of the fact that a great deal was achieved under the Good Friday agreement. The issue of decommissioning is one area in which there has been no progress at all. The people of Northern Ireland have gained much from the agreement, and we should audit what has been achieved: an inclusive power-sharing government; cross-border implementation bodies; a North-South Ministerial Council; a British-Irish Council; very importantly, the only human rights commission within these islands; the opportunity to have a police service that has the trust and respect of all; and a significant reduction in the number of troops on the streets. Substantial moves have been made towards the establishment of a normal society.
	The Assembly had a long--far too long--period of gestation. In its brief period of effective operation it has proved that it can work well for all the people of Northern Ireland, and we have much to lose if it collapses altogether. Therefore, we believe that immediately all parties in Northern Ireland must come together to resolve the situation. The Bill allows the parties some breathing space to ensure that that task can be carried out quickly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. As I said yesterday, it takes time to build up an institution; it takes a matter of hours to finish it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave testimony to the number of institutions that he had seen come and go. It is vitally important that we do not allow the suspension to go on for too long and that we restore full power to the Assembly as speedily as possible.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this debate illustrates that your Lordships' House is at one in supporting the Bill, with some provisos. Warnings have been given to Her Majesty's Government. However, we are all still hopeful that miracles will happen and that suspension will not be necessary. I restate the stance of my party. We believe in the Belfast agreement and in the need for the IRA to disarm. We also believe that everything humanly possible must be done to keep the Executive together. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will have the courage, skill, luck and good fortune to do that which we all know is necessary.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their co-operation in allowing all stages of the Bill to take place in this House in the course of two days. In particular, I thank the Front Benches of the two parties opposite. The House is practically united in the views expressed over the past two days. We face a very serious situation in Northern Ireland this week. The Bill before the House is one that none of us would have chosen to consider, let alone bring into effect, but there is a serious risk that cross-community confidence in the institutions will diminish to the point where those institutions are in danger of collapse. The Government cannot stand idly by and watch; they must take urgent action to ensure that they have the necessary powers so that the continuing good governance of Northern Ireland is safeguarded.
	All in this House want the agreement to succeed and every aspect of it to be implemented in full. We want to see devolution and decommissioning--both are voluntary aspects of the agreement but both are essential--take place. We want to see substantive progress being made on decommissioning immediately. If that progress does not materialise the Government recognise the need to take action to safeguard the institutions. The Bill provides a breathing space for the parties to come together to review the current situation and resolve the very real problems which exist. It is pause or bust. That is potentially the only choice which lies before us. If that situation is reached I do not believe that it is a choice at all. We cannot allow the institutions to perish; there is too much at stake. A pause will at least preserve the institutions and enable us to focus all our efforts on finding a way forward. All of us want to see the Good Friday agreement succeed: there will never be a better agreement. It is for that reason that the House supports the Bill.
	I conclude briefly by referring to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. Next week a draft order under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act is to come before this House and another place. The effect of it is to extend the amnesty period during which decommissioning can take place under the Act until 23rd May 2000. The draft order will be subject to full and open debate here and in another place. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt that debate, save to say that the order is essential in order that decommissioning can take place within the time-frame set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is what we all want to see.
	On Question, Bill passed.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Methuen) in the Chair.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: Not moved.

Baroness Blackstone: The Committee has previously divided on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has now decided not to move her Motion. Before we turn to the new amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, perhaps she will deal with one matter. I note from the Official Report that the noble Baroness who called Tuesday night's Division in the first place did not see fit to vote herself. Perhaps she can tell the Committee why.

Baroness Blatch: It is not for me to account for my actions on that evening. I called the Division and, to the embarrassment of the Government, they did not even have the payroll vote in the Chamber to support the clause. The truth is that I sat here so bemused by what took place on the other side that I forgot to vote.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 79A:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause--
	:TITLE3: SECTION 11: SUPPLEMENTARY
	(". The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on--
	(a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution; or
	(b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution.").

Baroness Blatch: My embarrassment at not voting on Tuesday evening was greatly overshadowed by the Government's inability to produce even the payroll vote late that night. I remember waiting, with some anguish, night after night, for the House to adjourn in order that I could go home because it was always deemed necessary that at least the payroll vote, if not others interested in the Bill, should remain until the end of business. However, the noble Baroness not only offended some in this House who actually believe in further education, but also others outside the House. Since that evening, phone calls that I have had from further education colleges and people representing them have shown how deeply offended they were by the sweeping statement made by the noble Baroness when she said that the Government's inheritance on taking office was one of sleaze and mismanagement in the further education sector, that had been allowed to flourish by a government who took a back seat whenever they could--

Baroness Blackstone: Let there be no mistake about this. I was saying that the previous government totally failed to ensure that there was a proper system in existence, when there was a breakdown in the performance that we expect from colleges of further education, with respect both to the standards of educational provision being provided and to financial probity. I was referring to the previous government's total failure to create a system in which those problems could be dealt with. I was in no way suggesting that the entire further education system was performing inadequately or suffering from a failure to achieve the kinds of standards that we expect. I was suggesting that there were a number of colleges--and I will name them a little later during the debate--where sleaze, incompetence and financial mismanagement as well as poor educational standards were allowed to flourish because of the previous government's failure to institute a proper system to ensure that such things did not happen.

Baroness Blatch: The words used by the noble Baroness were "sleaze" and "mismanagement". I have gone back to the statute to look at this, and in fact the powers to deal with such situations were there and still are there. The people who did not take action were those on the Further Education Funding Council. They had the powers to intervene; they had the knowledge of what was going on and in fact they did not use the powers as early as they might have used them, or indeed in the way that they should have used them. Certainly the colleges themselves were very concerned at the way in which the noble Baroness referred to the further education sector at that time.
	I have some sympathy with them, but they believe that the powers were there and could have been used by the Further Education Funding Council. However, those powers were not used by the council. Several speakers from the Liberal Democrat Benches also spoke of the powers that could have been used. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness will know that when I spoke on the evening in question I spoke of intervention, and especially of intervention at a point when it could either prevent trouble or prevent trouble getting worse in any college. That is important, and the noble Baroness will know that I have no objection whatsoever to the system that she described, of additional governors who could be put in place to help a college and either prevent difficulties arising or, if the intervention has come rather late, to prevent the situation getting worse. They could help a college in such a situation to get back on track.
	However, the powers in the Bill are open-ended. There is no trigger mechanism for them and there are no qualifying clauses which would dictate how the powers are to be used. There is no way in which the colleges could know what processes could be put in place if these powers were to be triggered. Therefore it is important that this power which, as I say, is open-ended at this moment, should be qualified in some way. The noble Baroness will notice that I have put forward a suggested clause which would follow Clause 11 which says that,
	"The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have"--
	which is what the noble Baroness was wanting the other evening--
	"an adverse effect on--
	(a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution; or
	(b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution".
	These are what the noble Baroness said were the conditions under which these powers would be used. I think it would be helpful to the colleges to have that on the face of the Bill, knowing the situation in which they would be used.
	Another matter which is greatly troubling the colleges is that there have been discussions with the department for some time now regarding the limited liability of governors. They are in a very vulnerable position in this sort of situation, especially those governors who do act reasonably and in good faith. We all know that acting reasonably and in good faith is normally a defence. However, it is very important that in some way the Government are able to clarify the position and liability of governors. I have in fact put down an amendment today, which will be seen on the Marshalled List on Monday, that will attempt to help this situation.
	The important thing is that if there is to be intervention in the colleges, it should not be subjective. It should be on the basis of having concerns either about the standards of education in a college or the administration of the college and the effective use of resources. These resources are, as the noble Baroness rightly said the other evening, public funds and the protection of public funds is important. I believe that this qualifying clause would help. If the Government are minded not to include the suggested clause, one really has to join the colleges and wonder what it is that the Government are planning in terms of the use of these powers.
	Perhaps I might just say before the noble Baroness rises to speak that I am not speaking to Amendment No. 168A. I shall leave that amendment to my noble friend Lord Roberts when he comes to deal with the Welsh clauses. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I believe that there is real concern about the open-ended nature of the powers given to the LSC in Clause 11. It was for that reason that we from these Benches put forward Amendment No. 79, which was debated the other evening. Since that time I have reread in Hansard our debate, and have thought carefully about the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness the Minister.
	As I said on Tuesday night, we were all disappointed at the attitude of the Government on this issue. The Minister made it clear that the power to appoint governors would be used only in the last resort when things are going badly wrong. It was in that spirit that Amendment No. 79 was put forward: that the powers granted under Section 27 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 were sufficient to cover the position. We objected that using these powers would be too cumbersome and would prevent action at an early stage when things were beginning to go wrong, arguing that the LSC should not operate by a ministerial fiat but should have powers of its own.
	This new amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would seemingly overcome this obstacle, in the sense that it would give the Learning and Skills Council the power to intervene in its own right in these exceptional circumstances. From these Benches we have some reservations about the powers granted to the council, even under this amendment. For that reason, although we would support it in spirit, we are inclined to prefer to think further on it and perhaps return to the issue at Report stage.

Lord Dearing: I rise for the first time in this House to take part in the discussion of a clause. In doing so I now realise how much more comfortable it was to sit with the files, as an official, as I did 30 years ago, to write notes for the Minister, rather than to stand up and without the benefit of the files try to make a contribution.
	For some years I was the chairman of a body called the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Baker, appointed me to that office. It may be that an experience I had on one occasion, imperfect though my memory may be, will be of some relevance. It made me wonder, with respect, whether the very understandable concern to introduce safeguards, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, might circumscribe the ability of the council to respond to a situation, because it is very difficult to anticipate in a safeguarding clause the kinds of circumstances which may arise.
	The circumstance which I imperfectly remember was that of a college of higher education. It got into financial difficulties and then received an adverse report on its academic standards. A very real crisis had developed. The governing body responded by proposing, in effect, the closure of the college and the transfer of all the students to another institution. When the case came before the funding council, it seemed to us, first, that the procedures adopted by the college had been imperfect and, secondly, that the decision it had reached was not in the best interests of the students.
	The governing body had taken its decision in good conscience, but we thought the decision mistaken. The council indicated that it opposed the decision and there could have been a very difficult impasse. Happily, the situation was resolved by the honourable resignation of the chairman and one or two other members. I was then able to use my good offices to suggest certain other appointments. So the problem was resolved in a way preferable to what had been originally intended and in the best interests of the students.
	If there had been an impasse, I am not sure, without powers to bring in new people and thus unlock minds, that the matter could have been solved satisfactorily. Any powers of the kind proposed by the Government should be used sparingly and only after every attempt has been made to resolve matters by agreement and negotiation. However, sometimes that is not possible. I believe that it is in the interests of students for the council to be able to make two appointments and then be accountable for the action that it has taken.

Baroness Blackstone: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I respond to this amendment at some length. I believe that we are discussing an important matter. We are agreed that the LSC should have the power to intervene. There is nothing between us on that. I return to the points I made when debating amendments to Clause 11 about the need to intervene early. I understand that the concerns of the noble Baroness are about the actual circumstances in which the powers may be used. She referred to the need for triggers on the face of the Bill for determining when the power should be exercised. She has now produced an amendment which would set out the circumstances in which the LSC could exercise the power. But again I am afraid she has missed the point. We must look back at the kind of circumstances which gave rise to the need for this power in the first place.
	In our earlier debate I mentioned Halton College. The report published by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the title, Investigations of alleged irregularities at Halton College, lists 14 allegations that were received and investigated by the Further Education and Funding Council. Some were found not to be substantiated. Some were found to be partly substantiated. Some were found to be fully substantiated. In the PAC's 37th report, published after its consideration of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the committee drew out some of the devastating consequences of what went wrong. I should like to quote from the PAC's first conclusion:
	"It is highly unsatisfactory that Halton College overclaimed almost £14 million, and that to a large extent these overclaims evaded financial controls in place at the college and in the Funding Council. One immediate impact of the need to repay this money is that 114 people will lose their jobs, and this will cost the taxpayer £1.8 million".
	The committee went on to give details of a range of other serious concerns about what had happened. As many noble Lords will know, this committee is not known for issuing plaudits, but in this case I think it is worth noting two of the committee's comments. First, in respect of the action taken by the FEFC, the committee said:
	"We welcome the steps taken by the Funding Council and the college to improve governance, internal control, management and audit arrangements at Halton College".
	Incidentally, I think that what the noble Baroness said, arising, she says, from discussions she has had with the AoC about the funding council, is grossly unfair. I would wish to place on record my appreciation of the efforts that the FEFC has put into tackling problems at colleges. I wish to note also that the provisions in Clause 11 reflect points made to me by its chairman, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham and its chief executive, Professor David Melville. They are the practitioners in the front line and it is only right that the form of that clause is informed by their unfortunately all too considerable experience of dealing with problems in certain colleges.
	Secondly, on the measures that we introduced to improve the accountability framework for further education colleges, the committee had this to say:
	"We strongly support the positive response of the Department to the problems uncovered at Halton and Bilston Community College on which the Funding Council has recently published a highly critical report".
	The committee referred to Bilston College and I should like to mention a number of points about it as well. The FEFC commissioned an inquiry into the future of this college which was published in March last year. It was headed by Terry Melia, the former chief inspector of the council. The college had been the subject of the most critical inspection report on a further education college ever published by the council up to that time. The inspection report highlighted deficiencies in both the governance and the management of the college. It found serious weaknesses in many curriculum areas and cross-college services that impact directly on students.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she tell the Committee what powers the FEFC lacked for picking up these points earlier and for taking action even earlier than it did?

Baroness Blackstone: I shall come to that later in my response to the noble Baroness's amendments. I shall return to the particular case of Bilston Community College. The college's financial position was "parlous". Terry Melia's report found that the management and financial systems of the college were unreliable. Indeed, his inquiry team could not with any certainty be sure of the financial position of the college. The report noted that the corporation had not been conducting its business in accordance with its instrument and articles of government. It had not fulfilled its responsibilities under its financial memorandum with the funding council. College budgets did not provide a sound basis for the college's continuing solvency. Financial planning and monitoring had been imprudent. There was no systematic management of the college's provision. There was no coherent management of student support. I am afraid I could go on at some length.
	The sad conclusion reached by the inquiry team was:
	"We see no future for the college as an independent corporation".
	Following the normal statutory processes, it was my task to consider the proposal made by the council to the Secretary of State to close the college. Regrettably, I saw no option but to agree to this last summer.
	The reason why I have illustrated these issues at some length is not to restate the case for having these provisions in the Bill. We have already agreed that and there is common ground between us. Rather, it is the very wide-ranging nature of the issues that the FEFC at present, and the LSC in future, may have to tackle. I can assure the noble Baroness that since we last debated these issues we have thought long and hard about whether we could go some way towards meeting her concerns. But as soon as we begin to look at the realities on the ground--and I have only illustrated two of a number of cases in which I have had personal involvement--it immediately becomes evident that as soon as we start classifying or prescribing circumstances and situations or conditions to be met, we run into problems. I remain extremely unhappy that we should impose restrictions of this kind on the face of the Bill.
	The issue is this. When we start limiting the power and ruling certain things in, we automatically rule everything else out. As I have tried to indicate through the examples that I have given, the kind of problems that have been encountered cannot always be readily categorised and pigeonholed. The LSC must be able to act flexibly and responsively if concerns arise at a college.
	I turn now to the existing power. The existing power for the FEFCE to nominate two additional members to governing bodies was provided without constraints by the previous government in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I must repeat that if we did not include anything in this Bill, the LSC could be given a power to nominate additional governors in the same way as the funding councils do now, and it would be without constraint. However, the power is limited to nomination, not appointment, leaving the LSC open to the possibility that it could be frustrated by delaying tactics. This provision, which is designed to allow swifter intervention, would avoid that kind of delay and make the operation of the power more effective. We are making effective the use of an existing power upon which the previous government saw no case for including constraints. Therefore, I find it particularly surprising that the noble Baroness, who was a member of that government, now wants to impose such constraints on the LSC.
	If the noble Baroness's amendment is accepted, it could prove less effective than the existing provision under which the FEFC has power to nominate two people for membership of a governing body. That power of nomination is not limited in any way by the factors which are identified in this amendment. Therefore, the noble Baroness has, I am afraid, committed herself to an amendment which, in practice, will make it more difficult for the LSC to make an early intervention. At the same time, she has gone on record as saying that there is a case for early intervention and that it is right that additional governors should be appointed. I do not feel that the noble Baroness can have it both ways.
	Given the ever-present threat of judicial review, there can be little doubt that the noble Baroness's amendment will act as a disincentive to early action by the LSC. I really do not understand why the noble Baroness has persisted with the matter when she has confirmed her agreement to the principles involved. I am grateful for that agreement.
	Her amendment introduces a new condition before the triggers. The councils must have "reasonable cause to believe". Of course, the councils must act reasonably, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has already said. They are public bodies and we require no less. Therefore, that is quite unnecessary.
	However, I shall return to that particular point concerning reasonableness a little later as I should also like to comment on a separate point, relevant to this debate, that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, when she spoke to her amendment to Clause 11. I take this opportunity to address that matter more fully. She was concerned that this power,
	"seems an unreasonable interference with the autonomy of individual colleges".--[Official Report, 8/2/00; col 647.]
	I am afraid that I believe that to be overstating the case. We intend to respect the autonomy of FE colleges. We are not proposing an unlimited power of appointment, which, I agree, would undermine autonomy, but simply a maximum of two additional governors. For example, all further education corporation governing bodies have a minimum of 12 governors before any additional appointments are made. Therefore, the LSC appointments would always be in a minority. But the LSC must have a seat at the table so that its voice can be heard and listened to when things go wrong.
	As for the noble Baroness's concern that Clause 11 gives the LSC carte blanche to act unreasonably, that is a misguided concern. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, such a power would be used sparingly. No one has suggested that the FEFC is currently abusing its power to nominate members of governing bodies, and I have never heard the AoC even suggest that. Clause 11 merely expedites the process whereby the LSC gains representation on the governing body. In the unlikely event that the LSC proposed to act wholly unreasonably and appoint governors for absolutely no good reason, not only would the ordinary process of judicial review be available, but the Secretary of State would be able to give a binding direction to the LSC under Clause 25, which we shall come to later. To the extent that Clause 25 does not already make that absolutely clear, we propose to bring forward an amendment in due course to put the matter beyond doubt.
	The powers would be along the lines of similar powers that already exist in respect of the current FE funding councils. If a college considered that it was being treated improperly, the funding councils would enable it to ask for intervention by the Secretary of State. It would include as a matter of course the powers under Clause 11.
	I must repeat that the Government cannot accept these amendments, for the reasons that I have given. However, I hope that the amendment that I propose will go part of the way to meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That will put directly on to the face of the Bill a way for a college--or, indeed, anyone--to approach the Secretary of State if it considers that the LSC is acting unreasonably. It would also address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendments. However, if she decides to divide the House, I hope that on this occasion she will not forget to vote.

Lord Tope: Before the Minister responds, I thank her for explaining the Government's position so fully. I believe that, in spite of the slightly adversarial start to today's proceedings, we are not very far apart on this matter. I believe that we share the concerns expressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of course, speaks for herself, but she has said, and I echo, that we understand and share the intentions of the Government.
	On the other hand, I hope that the Minister recognises that the concerns which the noble Baroness's amendment seeks to address are shared not only by our Benches but by the FE sector generally. I am pleased that apparently she has recognised that point sufficiently to want to bring back an amendment at Report stage. Perhaps I may ask that we have early sight of that, when possible. I am sure that we can return to the matter at that stage.
	I believe it is important that the Government recognise that, while their objective is shared, I am sure, by all, there is great concern, not only in this Chamber but outside, too, about the apparently open-ended nature of Clause 11. It may be that the amendment she intends to table will help to resolve some of that concern. We shall await it with interest.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a full and comprehensive answer. I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that there is a great deal of agreement about the principle and about the policy intention behind this issue.
	I am sorry that the noble Baroness believes that my amendment is narrowly drawn. It covers absolutely every aspect of a college: the quality of the education and training provided--that is, its whole rationale for being--and the whole of the management. It states,
	"where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by ... the ... Acts".
	In other words, it covers every aspect of the college. The amendment refers to "Education Acts"; that is, those that have been passed and this Act, in particular, which is about to be passed and which, as I say, is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality of education or the management of the college and/or the use of public funds. There is nothing narrow about that. It includes all the activities of the college.
	I turn to the particular examples given by the noble Baroness. A number of us are still bemused that the FEFC, which continued to fund those colleges--and that was not the only example; there were one or two others--continued to fund them in the full knowledge of what was happening. The only eyes and ears for any Secretary of State--past or present--in this situation are the inspectorates and/or the FEFC. It seems to me extraordinary that such a parlous situation was allowed to develop at that college and that the report to which the noble Baroness referred was the first manifestation of what was going on there. Therefore the appointment of two governors was extremely late in the day. I absolutely agree with the point made by the noble Baroness that early intervention would have been much more appropriate. An early expose of what was going on at that college would have helped a great number of people, not least the students and the people in the local community.
	It is not a narrowly drawn amendment. The noble Baroness has talked about strengthening the powers. I still believe that it is important for the colleges to know that any additional governors are nominated and/or appointed because of a reasonable view that there is something wrong. That is precisely what my amendment provides.
	I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, before coming into the Chamber today. I know that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to give more thought to this matter because there are concerns about the use of a power.
	What needs to be said and put on the record is that for every college that went wrong, many more colleges had no problems at all and served their local communities and students extremely well. They have enjoyed and made the most effective use of their autonomy. Therefore, it is important to balance the autonomy of the governing body and the running of an institution with taking sensible precautionary action where that becomes necessary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, gave us some examples. Throughout what he was saying, I was thinking to myself that it was much too late in the situation which the noble Lord described. One would want to appoint the governors at the point at which the signs were picked up, either through auditing and/or inspection or by the funding council, which in future will be the skills council, that something is going seriously wrong. That would be on the basis of having some suspicion that problems were beginning and things were beginning to go awry. Intervention would then be wholly justified.
	That is linked to another point, to which I shall return on a later amendment; namely, governors' liability. It is extremely important that, from time to time, governors see these matters for themselves. Some people operate in some institutions in such a way that the governors are not aware that something is going wrong until it is too late.
	But I return to my original point. It is very odd that the FEFC waited so long to expose the problems in that particular college. I shall withdraw the amendment. I hope that discussions can continue and that we can reach an accommodation before the next stage of the Bill.

Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will withdraw her amendment. Just before she sits down, I want to make two or three small points.
	First, I too want it on the record, as I think I said earlier this afternoon, that the vast majority of colleges do a very good job. But unfortunately, a small minority has not done so and it has been able to get away with that partly because the structures were not in place which allow the FEFC to intervene as quickly as it needs to.
	It is precisely because of the autonomy of those colleges which the noble Baroness wants to see that the FEFC's position must be one whereby it abides by the law and takes care in how it operates. It must also collect the evidence before it can intervene. But once that evidence is collected, it must be untrammelled in its ability to do so.
	The primary power existed under the previous government's 1992 Act but, unfortunately, an order had never been brought forward until this Government did so in October last year, making it possible for the FEFC to nominate up to two additional governors. We are now taking that one step further and allowing it to make that appointment.

Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Baroness saying that the FEFC could continue to fund for specific purposes, knowing that the money and resources given to those colleges was being abused and misused and could continue without any power whatever to do anything about it?

Baroness Blackstone: Unfortunately, most of the continuing funding of those colleges went on under the government of whom the noble Baroness was a member. As soon as this Government came into power, they immediately took action through the FEFC to sort out the appalling mess which had existed as a result of the failure of the previous government to have a proper structure in place.

Baroness Blatch: That was not my question. Where was the lack of power which would have prevented the FEFC from saying to a college, "You are not receiving any more money until resources are being properly used"? The FEFC had power to hold moneys back. No Secretary of State can know what is going on unless he is told what is going on. Where was the lack of power? Under what power did the FEFC continue to fund a college knowing that things were going so badly wrong?

Baroness Blackstone: The issue at stake here is that the governing bodies of further education colleges have very considerable autonomy with respect to spending the money which has been allocated to them. There may be subsequent changes to the allocations but a large college already has substantial resources. A couple of those colleges got into a deficit position. At that stage, the FEFC was able to intervene.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 [Research and information]:

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 6, line 18, at end insert--
	("( ) The Council shall carry out research into specific groups of learners and the learning process as relevant to such groups.").

Lord Addington: With this amendment, we return to something of a hobby-horse of mine; that is, the provision of information and making sure that the correct information is available. It deals also with something of a parliamentary old friend; namely, "may" and "shall".
	At present the Bill provides that:
	"The Council may carry out research".
	My amendment seeks to ensure that:
	"The Council shall carry out research into specific groups of learners and the learning process as relevant to such groups".
	Effectively, we are seeking to build up the bank of information. Most people who have been dealing with this problem--I referred to it during our previous debates in Committee--encounter enormous difficulties in trying to secure the right sort of information and to take the right sort of action. That leads to a prolonged process in trying to obtain the appropriate help for individual students, and it is probably the greatest bugbear of all the organisations which are dealing with those issues.
	I suggest that this Bill provides us with the opportunity to build up a great pool of information on which it will be possible to call. It will be of tremendous help also to other sectors of education as it will set precedents which will be relevant to the schools and higher education sectors. We should grab that opportunity as it will make life easier for the whole sector. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 92, which is grouped with this amendment. Also, I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
	I wish to qualify the word "adequate" which is difficult fully to understand in legislation. I know that those concerned with people with learning difficulties believe that whatever is provided should be "sufficient" and it certainly should be "appropriate" to the particular needs of the individual. Therefore, the words "sufficient and appropriate" would be more specific, understandable and reassuring for those who are concerned about meeting the relevant needs of people with learning difficulties.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to our debate on Tuesday 8th February at cols. 578 and 581, when I queried whether the provision provided by social services would remain adequate for mentally handicapped young people to complement the education supported by the new LSC. Understandably, the Minister said she could not speak from the Dispatch Box for social services, but she said that the Government were doing their best to improve social services in this area. I am sure that we all accept that and are very grateful for it.
	Even if the noble Baroness cannot make commitments for other departments, which I am sure we all accept, the collaboration between government departments is something I would like to pursue in this area because education on its own, however excellent (certainly for all children with learning difficulties and especially for those with severe learning difficulties) cannot succeed unless social services, and indeed the Department of Health, is collaborating fully. I mention health because we must not forget that these children often have quite severe health problems as well.
	I hope I may be pushing at an open door with the Government, because I am aware that for mentally handicapped adults--adults with learning difficulties--the Government are wisely encouraging more collaboration between health, social services and local authorities. I feel sure that the Government deserve congratulation on that initiative. Indeed, I have suggested to the Minister in another place that for mentally handicapped adults the Home Office should also be invited to join the loop because a disturbingly high proportion of the prison population is now mentally disordered--I believe the figure given is some 40 per cent. A growing number of those people may have learning disabilities.
	Better collaboration between health and social services in areas indicated by the Home Office might prevent some of these people going to prison, which is obviously damaging for them--they are already unfortunate--and it is also, of course, very expensive. One fears that some prisoners will be in the age group covered by this clause--up to age 25.
	And so, for the young people concerned it seems to me that we cannot provide even "adequate" education, let alone "sufficient and appropriate" education or training, as proposed by my noble friend's amendment, unless there is full collaboration between the noble Baroness's department, social services and health. I submit, for what it is worth, that it might also be worth consulting the Home Office for the reason I have given.
	Finally, I think it would be worth having a representative of the Treasury present in this proposed inter-governmental collaboration because I am sure that the Government want to look at education which is effective, care-effective and cost-effective. I support the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: In addressing the amendments in this group I shall first speak to Amendment No. 80 and to Amendment No. 169, the parallel amendment for Wales.
	Clause 12(1) and subsection Clause 39(1) empower the LSC and the CETW to carry out research relevant to any of their functions. Clearly, those functions include provision for all learners, including people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Identifying and meeting the learning needs of those groups will be part of the core business of the councils.
	The LSC and the CETW will certainly therefore have all the powers that they require to carry out research into the needs of specific groups of learners, including those with disabilities and learning difficulties, and into how the learning process is and should be serving them best.
	The FEFCs, working with organisations such as FEDA, have a good track record of research in this area and I certainly expect the LSC to maintain that level of priority. Indeed, further research is an important part of the consideration of plans for our future provision for disabled people which the LSC will be under a statutory duty to compile.
	While research into the needs of such key groups will be an important part of the work of the LSC and the CETW, I see no need to give them statutory duties to that effect. Therefore, with the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
	With regard to Amendment No. 92, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 recognised the importance of specialist provision and boarding accommodation as part of the learning opportunities available for people with learning difficulties. We have continued that approach and the good practice that currently exists in this Bill.
	Our intention is that in discharging its duties in Clause 2 and 3, the LSC must give consideration to whether or not it can provide an adequate standard of education for a person with learning difficulties. Where it cannot, it must consider provision of boarding accommodation if a person is under 25, and may do so where a person is over 25. That is what Clause 13 means. Our use of the term "adequate" has a meaning similar to that at Clause 2(2)(b)--page 2 at line 8--where it alludes to the "quality" of provision adequate to meet the needs of a young person, and reflects the priority that we have given to meeting young peoples' needs.
	It is not necessary to amend the clause by inserting the word "appropriate" because, in effect, it is already there. The council's duties at Clauses 2 and 3 stipulate that its provision must be,
	"suitable to the requirements of persons".
	In short, it must be "appropriate" in the sense that the noble Baroness intends.
	Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said, I entirely accept that in this area there is a need for collaboration across departments, just as there is a need for collaboration across departments in the setting up of the ConneXion service, where young people in various kinds of difficulties may require the services not just of my department but also of the Department of Health, which, of course, is responsible for social services, and in some cases the Home Office, where the young person has got into trouble with the law. As for the Treasury, that department always makes its presence known in departmental discussions of this kind. I take the point that the noble Lord makes. We are trying to have more effective joined-up government thinking in this and other areas.

Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. If I heard her correctly, I believe her reply was that the Government intend to do that anyway so there is no need for a specific duty to be placed on the face of the Bill. That is roughly what I understood her to say. However, we must bear in mind that so far we have never had enough information to allow people to find the right kind of help or the right processes are not available to them. That point lies behind the amendment. I do not know whether we shall ever achieve that. We can certainly do better and we can stop wasting time.
	I said that this is a "may" or "shall" argument, although I do not believe that we should delay the Committee on this matter. However, I give notice that I shall return to the issue, on this Bill and others, because unless we get it clear and unless we know where to start looking people will continue to chase around and miss years in their education because they cannot find out what is going on.
	I thank the Minister for her description of "adequate", which makes one consider the bear minimum as opposed to what is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 6, line 26, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").

Baroness Blatch: I travel hopefully on this amendment because it is purely a change to the grammar. I am sure there are no politics whatever in it because I had a jolly good look. I feel the provision should say "systems are" rather than "systems is" and I hope we will not be going through the Division Lobbies on this amendment.
	Amendments Nos. 82 to 85 are grouped with Amendment No. 81 and I shall speak to them also. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will speak to Amendment No. 86 and the Welsh Amendment No. 170.
	My amendments relate to the same theme as that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel; that is, to put into the public arena information in relation to the further education and post-16 sectors. Amendment No. 82 seeks to provide that, where the Secretary of State commissions work from the council, he will publish any such request in the interests of open government. Amendment No. 83 requests the council to,
	"publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort obtaining any qualification approved under section 87".
	Amendment No. 84 asks again for annual information,
	"about the number of students in each age cohort working towards any qualification approved under section 87".
	Amendment No. 85 suggests that the council should publish each year,
	"information about the number and percentage of people in each age cohort achieving each level of qualification approved under section 87, making due allowance for individuals achieving more than one approved qualification".
	We have gone a long way to produce this kind of information from the school sector. The amendments would do a service to the further education sector because in terms of its achievement it is an unsung part of the education service. It is a continuing bank of information which would be enormously useful, not only to show what our colleges are achieving, but also to help the Government and local communities using the colleges quantify the way in which the aims and objectives of the colleges are being achieved. I beg to move.

Lord Haskel: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 86 and 170. My reasons for tabling these amendments are close to the reasons stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. But this is not the time or place to make a long speech about the benefits of openness and freedom of information.
	The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to continue collecting the data which is at present collected by the Further Education Funding Council. It collects data, including staffing information on FE colleges and other information, which is not published regularly but which is valuable both to unions and local authorities. My amendments ask the Government to ensure that that information continues to be collected and is published regularly. It is the regular publication of the data which is helpful to those trying to plan staffing and other aspects of FE education.

Lord Tope: First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on Amendment No. 81. I see the Minister shaking his head. I have no doubt the previous government got it wrong as well. I pledge the noble Baroness our support at least if she feels the need to divide the Committee on this important issue. It may be that this will be the most significant victory that she scores in these Committee proceedings.
	I support the intention behind the other amendments, which is to obtain from the Government what I hope we are about to hear; namely, an assurance that this information will continue to be collected and published. Whether or not it belongs on the face of the Bill I have some doubts, but I welcome an assurance from the Minister that, if it is thought appropriate, the council will be asked to provide and publish this information, in guidance or whatever.

Lord Lucas: I rise to support my noble friend. A freedom of information Bill is coming to this House in due course and one of its great effects, should it become law, will be to open up this closed box of information that is kept by the likes of Ofsted and the FEFC. It is important information on how schools are run and managed, to which access to the public and researchers is far too restricted. Outside researchers hardly ever have access to that information and analyses of how schools do and what kind of education works well. That access tends to be restricted to authorities' researchers alone. The freedom of information Bill will open that up and make this sort of information much more widely available on much better terms.
	I hope the Government will recognise that the freedom of information Act is coming and adjust the terms of this Bill to accommodate the kind of openness that will be the ruling feature of the Act. It is important that information is collected--information cannot be made available if it is not collected. It must be clear that the right information is collected; that there are duties on the council to collect information that will be useful to people on a wide scale and not just to the limited clientele described in the Bill. I hope the Government will see their way to supporting my noble friend's amendments.
	In relation to Amendment No. 81, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, appears to wish to dispute it. If he does he will misunderstand the nature of "information". We cannot design information. Information is something that is collected. We can design systems for collecting it; but we cannot design it. If we design information all we get is lies.

Lord Bach: I should like to take in turn Amendments Nos. 81, 82 to 85 and then 86 and 170, all of which relate in different ways to the provision of information.
	I start by saying that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that Amendment No. 81 does not concern any political issue. I am impressed by how closely the noble Baroness scrutinised the Bill. But that is as far as I can go. I cannot accept the amendment, which is based on a belief that there is a grammatical inaccuracy in the Bill as it now stands.
	I do not want to spend too much time on this; there are other matters with which we must deal. The effect of the amendment, and indeed what the noble Baroness means by it, is that it is the systems which the councils set up which could, in and of themselves, secure that the funding and other decisions are made on a sound basis. The Government argue that it is the information--for example, on learner and labour market needs--which will do the securing and not the mechanics and structures of the systems which will hold and process the information. So it is "information is" rather than "information are". I am afraid therefore that we reject the amendment and ask her to withdraw it.

Lord Tope: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage and thank the Minister for his explanation. I read the wording with different breaks in it and feel that I must now withdraw my unqualified support for the noble Baroness that I gave earlier.

Lord Bach: This must be the first time, certainly in my experience, that I have ever persuaded any Member of the Committee of the strength of my argument. It gives me encouragement for the future.
	I turn to Amendment No. 82. The intention is to amend line 21 and Clause 21(2), which deals with requests from the Secretary of State, and not Clause 21(4), which links to line 27. I only say this for the sake of clarity and not to be clever, but I believe the amendment should read "Page 6, line 21" and not "line 27". I give way of course if I am wrong.

Baroness Blatch: On a quick reading, I still think that I am right. I am less interested in where it goes than in whether the Minister thinks the point is good, and that information should be in the public arena.

Lord Bach: Let us move straight to that aspect. It is neither surprising nor exceptional that the Bill contains a requirement of the LSC to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information or advice on matters relating to its functions. Such a prevision--like its precedent in the 1992 Act--helps lay the foundation for good governance and a good working relationship between a Secretary of State and a non-departmental public body.
	As to confidentiality, I had the pleasure of serving with the normal Lord, Lord Lucas, on the Select Committee that considered the draft Freedom of Information Bill. The revised Bill is still in another place. No doubt we will spend many hours, if not days, examining that Bill in due course.

Lord McNally: Weeks.

Lord Bach: I see another member of the Select Committee in his place, when he was not a few minutes ago.

Lord McNally: But it will still be weeks.

Lord Bach: I question whether a requirement to publish would not cut across good practice in relation to confidentiality. I believe that everyone, including those in your Lordships' House, is committed to the principle of open government, but due regard must be paid to ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially important policy information.
	The publication of requests for information or advice, which might relate to the circumstances of individuals or future expenditure plans, may not always be appropriate or constructive. On that basis and with the law as I stands, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press Amendment No. 82.
	Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would require the LSC to obtain information about all external qualifications, whether they are pursued in the secondary or further education sectors--including those delivered by private providers. Approvals will be made for qualifications under Clause 87 for the purposes of public funding by the LSC or LEAs, but approved qualifications may also be provided without any recourse to public funds. The amendments appear not to distinguish between qualifications that are publicly funded and those which are not. The LSC would have to supply information about the uptake and achievement of approved qualifications regardless of who funds them.
	The amendments would impose a disproportionate additional burden on learning providers in both the public and private sectors. The information required would probably exceed the use to which it would be put--and far more than the LSC requires to meet management or financial information needs. It might replicate information that providers already supply to meet other requirements. Schools provide information about provision and achievement for various purposes under the Education Act 1996. The governing bodies of FE sector institutions will continue to be required to publish information on provision and achievement under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
	We want to ensure that information on achievement will be published. The current secondary and 16 to 18 performance tables and measures to monitor progress against national learning targets for young people and adults already provide the appropriately focused information that we all require, so we cannot accept the noble Baroness's three amendments.
	As to Amendment No. 86 and--the Welsh connection--Amendment No. 170, I am conscious that there are Welsh experts seated in all parts of the Committee. Providing high-quality learning requires people with the necessary skills. In the prospectus we said that all providers will need to demonstrate to the local LSC that their employees have appropriate nationally recognised qualifications or at least have plans to acquire them. The LSC will base its requirements on work by the employment and further national training organisations--NTOs. That is the right approach to developing high-quality standards and recognises the independence of providers, whether they are FE colleges or private or voluntary sector training providers. The proper approach for the LSC as the purchaser is to set the standards its providers should meet, then support them in a process of continuous improvement using the best-quality management systems.
	The amendments would make that a bureaucratic process, with costly and time-consuming data collection. It may be necessary from time to time--I hope this gives my noble friend some comfort--for the LSC to undertake surveys on matters such as staff qualifications, as does the FEFC with its annual survey of FE sector colleges. It would not be right to impose that practice by statute. The remuneration of staff employed by providers is a matter for employers rather than the LSC. I have to disappoint noble Lords, saying that I cannot accept the amendments.

Lord Dearing: I presume to intervene on this greater matter of the "is" and have considerable sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the way that she has been misled by the construction of the sentence. I have never heard of information that is designed. Information is information. Surely the provision is stating, in simple English, that the council must establish systems to collect the information needed to provide a sound basis for its decisions. The draftsman has been less than lucid in expressing his intentions.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because it is not just a grammatical point. Information cannot secure a decision, whether by design or otherwise. It will not be information that produces a sound decision but the council--based on the information that its systems should have provided. Even then the clause is not right; even systems cannot make sound decisions. I suggest that the Minister and his advisers have another look.

Baroness Blatch: What is in a word? It is a clumsy sentence. Whether or not "is" and "are" present a problem, I implore the Government to take another look. However one reads the sentence, it does not make sense. It would be better for it to make sense, especially as other practitioners will have to use the legislation as a working manual for delivering what the Government want.
	The Minister was concerned about the split between publicly-funded and privately-funded education and training. Therefore, before I decide what to do about these amendments, I have a question for the noble Lord. If I bring forward amendments that refer to "publicly funded" education, will that make a difference to the Government's response?

Lord Bach: I can tell the noble Baroness that if she did so we would certainly look at them carefully before deciding what our attitude would be. I do not think that she can expect more than that today.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that helpful indication and I shall certainly look at them again. However, I return to the school sector. Independent schools do provide information, although one cannot compel them to do so. That information is valuable and dovetails in with the information that comes from all the state and publicly-funded schools. It seems to me that it could be a feature of the 16-plus education.
	I take most seriously the Minister's point about the burden on providers, especially when they are very small and medium-sized businesses. I should like to reconsider the wording of these amendments, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 6, line 29, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 6, line 29, at end insert ("(including employment)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
	[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 93:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:TRANSPORT PROVISION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
	(" .--(1) The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties to participate in post-16 education and training.
	(2) The Council must make and publish a plan for the delivery of appropriate transport services and support for people with learning difficulties.
	(3) The Council may pilot dedicated transport schemes, in partnership with statutory and voluntary organisations, for people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.
	(4) In undertaking an assessment of the transport needs of people with learning difficulties and in establishing pilot schemes, the Council shall have regard to individual needs in relation to orientation and personal safety when utilising transport options, such as the prevention of bullying and abuse.
	(5) Local learning and skills councils must secure the provision of mobility training requested by people with learning difficulties participating in post-16 education and training.
	(6) For the purposes of this section transport includes--
	(a) the use of public transport;
	(b) the use of general transport provided by institutions, employers and training providers;
	(c) the use of transport provided by voluntary sector providers;
	(d) the use of private hire vehicles and other forms of private transport;
	(e) the use of specialist transport provided for disabled people.
	(7) For the purposes of this section a recipient of financial resources shall include people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25 who have extra transport costs in accessing post-16 learning.
	(8) For the purposes of this section mobility training includes enabling disabled people to access vehicles safely, orientate themselves on vehicles, travel in safety and deal confidently with the street environment.").

Lord Addington: This amendment is designed to deal with one of the major problems that affects those with learning difficulties; namely, transport to colleges. Students' limitations as regards transport may mean that they cannot actually,
	"participate in [the] post-16 education and training",
	which is available to them under certain circumstances, and reach the appropriate level in that educational process.
	The proposed new clause would mean the introduction of a training programme and strategy to enable people with learning difficulties to gain access to the appropriate college. They would be given training and back-up facilities would be available. The amendment emphasises "training", which is designed to get people to use public transport independently.
	I hope that the Government will endorse this proposal. It would mean that people with learning difficulties would, as members of a society, actually be integrated into the process of being out in society. Moreover, a large part of their experience in the education system means that they will be mixing with their peers and, indeed, the outside world. Once again, if the transport system does not work and they cannot gain access to such educational establishments, such integration cannot take place. I hope that the Government will give us a very favourable response. However, if they feel that my amendment is not needed, I trust that they will clearly state why it is not needed and tell us how they are going to address these problems. At present, much of the evidence I have gathered and most of the comments from people in this field seem to suggest that it is not happening: it is down to chance and luck as to whether "persons with learning difficulties" can get to such courses. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I warmly support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already put forward most of the arguments. I very much like the amendment because it spells out the huge mix of transport needs for these people. It suggests ways of solving such problems and also emphasises the need for mobility training, which is very important. We tried to address this issue in 1992 and failed.
	We are all agreed that post-16 learning is important for all, and especially so for people with learning difficulties. I should stress that I mean "learning difficulties" within the meaning of Clause 13, and not just those with learning disabilities. The Bill recognises this fact but, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, without the proper, planned provision, many disabled learners will not be able to benefit from what the Bill offers; and it offers a lot!
	I turn now to the consortium on post-16 education. I should mention briefly and in parenthesis that SKILL is involved here and I declare an interest as I am its president. The consortium recognises the difficulties surrounding the transport issue. It is willing to assist the DfEE and the councils in finding solutions and, if it would be helpful, to address the practical implementation of the legislation in this respect. I very much hope that there will be an extremely positive response from the Government. This issue is crucial to the success of a Bill that has so much to offer.

Lord Rix: I intended to speak to this issue on Second Reading, but I had to delete that part because my speech was already so long. Therefore, I should like to say a few words today to illustrate the importance of appropriate transport; and, indeed, the importance of training to negotiate public transport, especially for people with learning disabilities and those with learning difficulties. It is often assumed that the only barriers to transport are physical ones and that, therefore, people with learning disabilities are at no great disadvantage. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
	Travelling by public transport can be an extremely complex procedure, especially where a change of route or mode of transport is necessary. As we have just heard, for those who can eventually travel unaided, travel training is often a necessary pre-requisite. For many young people and their families there are also wider issues to consider, particularly issues relating to personal safety. Mencap's report, Living in Fear demonstrated that 25 per cent of people with learning disabilities who were surveyed had been bullied on public transport within the past year. This is an offensive and an unacceptable statistic, which will need to be tackled before transport can really be considered to be truly accessible.
	I should like to give Members of the Committee an example, which may help to highlight some of my concerns. A young person I know through Mencap had great difficulty in using public transport. Her parents feared for her safety as she had been verbally and physically abused on her local bus service many times. She attended a college with a large and complex campus and needed some assistance in finding the pick-up point for the taxi that she used to travel to and from college because the meeting points varied from week to week. No one saw it as his or her job to give this help and, in the end, her parents had to withdraw her from the college because of fears for her safety.
	I am, or have been, chairman of three other charities other than Mencap, each of which has been involved in funding transport for young people with disabilities and supporting the purchase of a large number of buses--not just for recreational purposes, but also for educational purposes. Public transport is not serving the wider public and local authorities are not meeting demand for specialist provision. In my view, this issue should be at the forefront of the efforts of the learning and skills councils to ensure, as we are promised, learning for all.

Lord Baker of Dorking: I should like to express my support for this amendment. I should also declare an interest as I am president of the Royal London Society for the Blind, which maintains a school for blind and visually-impaired children, and also a college for students aged 16 to 19 who are blind or visually impaired as well as having other multiple disabilities. I strongly support the amendment on the grounds adduced by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
	It does not really matter whether the education is adequate, sufficient or appropriate if it cannot actually be accessed. If a child under 16 has been statemented and goes to a school, the local authority has a statutory obligation to ensure that he or she gets to the appropriate school. However, that does not apply to those young persons aged 16 to 19.
	I made some inquiries of our students to see how they coped with the situation. Some students are in residential boarding accommodation, so they have access to the college immediately. Others make a daily journey. For some it is hazardous and very difficult. In some cases parents or friends help out. For the most part, the students have to make their way themselves, often bearing the cost themselves. Some may benefit from the mobility allowance; others do not.
	I hope very much that the Minister will recognise that this is an appropriate amendment. I congratulate her on both Clauses 13 and 14. Undoubtedly, they are a considerable improvement on the present arrangements. To have matters so clearly set out on the face of the Bill in statute is an enormous benefit for anyone aged 16 to 19 who has a learning difficulty. However, in the debates which took place last week the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wanted the age extended to age 25. I agree. But that is for another occasion. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. It will not have escaped her attention, because she is quite an astute Minister, that it has all-party support. However, she may have some hesitancy in welcoming subsection (1) which says very clearly,
	"shall secure the provision of financial resources",
	that is, cash.
	I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that this is an area in which the Treasury will be interested. The Treasury will pay great attention. The dead hand of the Treasury will settle upon it. I hope that the Minister resists that dead hand and welcomes the intention and spirit of the new clause. I am sure that she would not want to be embarrassed at a later stage of the Bill by this Chamber imposing its will on a reluctant government in this area.

Baroness David: As a member of the Labour Party whose name is to this amendment, I strongly support it. In speaking to education Bills throughout my many years in this Chamber, I have always tried to enable children to get to their place of education. The Government have moved a long way forward in helping with financial resources for over-16s. That is admirable. I hope that my noble friend can give some encouragement on the point we are discussing.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It must be obvious from what I said earlier today and on Tuesday that I support these amendments. It is not only that if the transport is not available the person cannot get to the education in question, but, speaking of mentally handicapped young people, if they are left hanging around outside the school or the course for a very long time, the effect can be quite traumatic and can nullify any good effect that the education may have had. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and hope that the Government can do likewise.

Baroness Blatch: My name is attached to the amendment. I want to make two points. First, the pressure will fall on local authorities for this head of expenditure. Therefore, it will present them with difficulties. The other point is that over-16s in many authorities are at present losing transport whether they have special needs or not.
	I have had interesting discussions with Conservative colleagues in local government in different parts of the country where transport has been removed for those aged over 16. If a young person lives in a village some miles from the nearest town and they do not have transport, they simply cannot reach the college. It is too far to walk. The bus services do not operate at times that help them. The one car, if there is a car in the family, has usually been used in the morning by whoever is working in the household. There is an issue about transport for young people in the 16 to 19 age range. But for people with learning difficulties and people with disabilities, the problem is compounded. It does not end at age 19: we are talking here about people up to age 25. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking says that the obligation to provide is strengthened by the Bill. However, providing adequate provision for this age group will not be worth anything if they cannot physically arrive at the institution.

Baroness Blackstone: I am extremely sympathetic towards the sentiments that I believe lie behind the amendment. I do recognise, as the noble friend, Lord Baker, said, that there is all-party support for the amendment. Incidentally, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of Clauses 13 and 14 and to my noble friend Lady David. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says about the availability of suitable transport being fundamental to equal opportunities and enabling some people with learning difficulties to take part in post-16 education and training.
	The problem about the amendment is that it goes much further. It would require the LSC to fund transport for all students with learning difficulties regardless of the nature of their difficulty and irrespective of whether assistance with transport was helpful in enabling them to participate in learning. Certainly, the Treasury would want to resist such a change. I would have some sympathy with that approach in the sense that this might not be the most sensible way of supporting some young people who have learning difficulties but who do not have a problem with transport.
	There is already provision in place to help post-16 students, including those with learning difficulties, with the cost of their transport. Under Section 509 of the Education Act 1996 local education authorities have a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the provision of transport for the purposes of facilitating the attendance of people attending schools and FE institutions. Where transport is provided it has to be free of charge. Local education authorities also have power to provide other forms of assistance for any other student. Many students with learning difficulties or disabilities are helped with transport in this way. Colleges can and do supplement what is provided by local education authorities by providing transport themselves or by offering financial assistance towards the cost of provision by transport companies. Much of this support comes from the access funds which the Government provide to all colleges in recognition of the importance of transport. The Government have significantly increased the size of the access fund from £47 million this year to £89 million in the year 2000-2001.
	The Government recognise that more needs to be done to improve transport for post-16 year-olds and are currently examining how this can be done. We have recently introduced measures, through the local authority standards fund, which will provide financial assistance for those on low incomes who remain at school after the age of 16. The fund will enable local education authorities to support a range of needs which include transport. Later this year we will begin a new pilot initiative to support 16 to 19 year-old students in full-time education with their transport costs. As with the education and maintenance allowance scheme, it will target support at young people from low income households. It will be piloted in both rural and urban areas. The pilot areas are currently being selected. Our intention is that the scheme should help those students living in areas with particular transport difficulties. We are also considering whether both the LEA pilots and the proposed new transport pilots should be extended to cater for circumstances where people with learning difficulties or disabilities may have finished compulsory education at a later age or have taken longer to complete a course, as is sometimes the case. We will consult the disability organisations before making a decision about whether and how this might be taken forward. Through these improvements in the general level of transport and support for students, I think we will increase the provision which can be used to help students with disabilities. The Government believe that this is a better way forward than identifying specific groups to be given an entitlement which would not be available to others in education and training.
	These issues were discussed by the Disability Rights Task Force which, as the Committee is aware, recommended in its report at the end of last year that the transport exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act should end. The Government are considering how to respond to that recommendation.
	I share the view of Members of the Committee that people whose learning difficulties or disabilities make travelling a difficult and stressful experience should have access to the transport they need. That is why we are strengthening our existing arrangements. However, I do not think that we can grant an entitlement to transport for all people with learning difficulties regardless of the nature of their learning difficulties. That would work directly at the expense of others such as those in deprived or rural areas who may also be dependent on assistance with transport to take up learning opportunities.
	Moreover, the Bill includes powers to enable the LSC to fund institutions and to fund the provision of ancillary activities, such as transport, under Clause 5(3). The LSC planning framework will enable gaps to be identified. The LSC could also consider using discretionary funding. I hope that those who have spoken in the debate will accept that the Government are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, I hope that in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope that I may ask her one question. I absolutely take the point that the noble Baroness has just made; namely, there are problems as regards providing a blanket entitlement to all people with learning difficulties. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in the amendment states,
	"The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties".
	If one then inserted the words,
	"who otherwise could not access adequate provision",
	under the relevant measure in the legislation, one would restrict the measure to those people for whom provision is being made but who cannot access it.

Baroness Blackstone: If the noble Baroness or any of the other speakers in this debate wishes to table an amendment along those lines, the Government will certainly consider whether it is acceptable. Of course, in doing so we would have to consider problems of definition.

Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank those who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, congratulated the Minister on Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. I very much admire the elegant way in which he waved a parliamentary rapier at the Government with regard to certain issues.
	We seek to ensure that there is coverage across the board on this matter. Every time disability problems arise, we are invariably told that good practice exists. As I say, one of the main aims of the amendment is to seek coverage across the board. The Minister did not properly address that point, probably because she could not do so as provision depends on the scheme someone is involved in. I suggest that the most important provision is mobility training to enable people to access public transport. We should all reconsider other approaches to this issue to push the matter further at a later stage. I shall certainly return to the matter. I encourage everyone else to rack their brains in this regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 [Disabled persons]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 7, line 17, at end insert ("and to each local authority").

Baroness Blatch: Clause 14 concerns a report to be prepared by the council. Amendment No. 94 seeks to include a requirement that a copy of the report should be sent to each local authority. Clause 14(2) states,
	"The Council must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State".
	We have all said that local authorities constitute the democratically elected people on the ground. They will be intensely interested in all the activities of the council. I believe that if the Secretary of State is to receive a copy of the report it should be stated on the face of the Bill that each local authority should also receive a copy. That is necessary not simply because they are interested in the provision of education and training and links with employment in their areas but also because, under the local government legislation, they also have an obligation to become involved in economic regeneration in their areas. Therefore I believe that they are entitled to receive a copy of the report. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Clause 14 will make sure that the learning and skills council accounts for the provision of post-16 education and training that it makes for people with disabilities. It carries forward the duties placed upon the FEFC by the Disability Discrimination Act. As Members of the Committee have already said, Clause 14 will be of help in creating wider access for adults with disabilities, as the Disability Rights Task Force has recommended.
	I also take the view that we should leave this matter to the good sense of the learning and skills council. At present, for example, although the FEFC is not under a duty to send copies of its report to anyone other than the Secretary of State, it nevertheless sends a copy to each FE college. That is good practice and common sense. I would expect the LSC to adopt a similar approach and, reflecting its wider responsibilities, send its report not only to LEAs but also to employers, FE colleges and voluntary organisations with whom it will work. However, these arrangements should be a matter for the LSC and not for legislation. I hope that the Committee will be reassured that local authorities will have access to the LSC's reports in this area, and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I believe that the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness apply also to the Secretary of State. One could argue that if the council is to produce the report, that is clearly intended for someone and therefore the Secretary of State would receive a copy. I suggest the wording "all relevant bodies" as the Disability Rights Commission will presumably take an interest in the report as it concerns disabled persons. I shall reflect on what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that either Clause 14(2) should be deleted as the council will in any case send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, or the words "all relevant bodies" should be included in the provision. Local authorities are worried that they appear to be "airbrushed out" of the system here. As I say, under local government legislation, they are obliged to become involved in certain matters. They certainly will be concerned with education, training and links with employment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Plans]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 95:
	Page 7, line 29, leave out from second ("year") to end of line 31 and insert ("and which should reflect the education and training needs of each local learning and skills council area").

Baroness Blatch: I hope that this amendment will not be misunderstood in the context of the council being accountable. However, as the noble Baroness will know, I am concerned about what appears to be a very "top down" system. Directions will come from the Secretary of State to the national council. They will cascade down to 47 local councils and to local education authorities. In addition, rural development agencies and other such bodies have to be taken into account. As regards education, particularly training and links with industry and employment, plans should reflect needs at a local level and should not necessarily conform to the directions of the Secretary of State. This is merely an attempt to make sure that where the council publishes a plan for each financial year it should cover all the things that one would expect. In Clause 15 (4)(a) the council has to set out how it intends to achieve within any financial year objectives which should be achieved in that year. It is about setting out in its plan how it intends to achieve the aims and objectives. The Bill should reflect not what the Secretary of State is saying but what are the education and training needs of each local skills area. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches have considerable sympathy with this amendment. Many organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TEC National Council, British Chambers of Commerce and the Local Government Association have all been very concerned indeed that plans drawn up by the LSC, and in particular by the local bodies, should reflect local needs. At national level there should also be some consideration of the overall national skills needs. In particular the CBI is very concerned about that issue.
	However, I am not convinced that this amendment rightly fits at this point in the Bill. I have pondered the issue. It is concerned with the annual plans of the council itself, but local needs come later on under Clause 22. We shall be putting forward a number of amendments to take account of local needs. However, generally we support the spirit of the amendment because of the strongly expressed views of a number of organisations that the council should take into account the users of skills as well as the providers.

Baroness Blackstone: The LSC as a whole will draw its strength from having both a coherent national strategy and strong local arms which will ensure that local needs are met. That is at the centre of the new arrangement. We believe in the importance of local arms, contrary to what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was suggesting in saying that we were adopting an excessively top-down approach. That is why we are recruiting influential people to the local councils of the LSC. It is also why we are devolving decision-making on the allocation of the majority of the LSC's budget to local level and why we are establishing a system which makes possible a bottom-up approach to drawing up local plans which will encourage local providers to put forward their proposals for meeting the needs and requirements that have been identified locally.
	Therefore, I believe it is self-evident that the plans of local LSCs, as provided for in Clause 22, will set out how they propose to discharge their responsibilities in the light of the education and training needs of the area. That is exactly what these plans are for.
	But it is not what the national LSC's operational plan is for. The purpose of that document is to set out how the LSC will deliver the objectives set for it as an NDPB which has agreed with the Secretary of State what targets it plans to meet and how it will spend its budget. Where the Secretary of State directs the LSC in accordance with his powers in Clause 25, it is surely essential that the council should set out how it proposes to comply with the directions in making and publishing its plan. If it did not do so, its planning would be neither effective nor transparent. Having heard those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My nervousness is shared by so many people outside. Clearly, from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said and the list of outside bodies mentioned by her, there are concerns about this matter. It is all very well to say that the national council will reflect local needs. The truth is, whatever the local councils and the LEAs do, they will be obliged under this Bill to act only in conformity with what is happening at national level.
	There is a worry that a straitjacket will be created and movement within that will have to be in conformity with the framework sent down from on high. I heed the cautionary words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in that this might not be the right place in the Bill to deal with this issue. What we all want is something in the Bill which gives force to what the noble Baroness aspires to; namely, that the process should be bottom-up and not top-down.
	At the moment everything in the Bill emanates from the Secretary of State through the national council down to the local skills councils. There needs to be something on the face of the Bill to indicate that that is not so. The plan will be business driven, skills and local education needs driven, but very much at a local level. When we speak about people moving from education training into the workforce, it is only the local influence which is going to work and not national plans or strategies, which may dovetail together in some parts of the country but not in others. We all know that this country is very diverse. The idea of a single plan coming from on high within which everyone has to operate is a cause of concern. We shall continue to badger on this point until we find something on the face of the Bill which gives strength to the points that we are making. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 7, line 33, at end insert--
	("(5) The Council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority.").

Baroness Blatch: This amendment suggests that the council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority. It is important. This amendment is also linked with Amendment No. 98 where the council has to set out how it intends to achieve its objectives within the budget.
	We have had a good deal of aspirational talk. I have been reading the document ConneXions. I reached about paragraph 5 and said to myself that I could not disagree with a single word of it. It uses aspirational and reassuring language which makes one feel good, but when one asks what will happen on the ground and what are the practical policies to deliver the aspirational hope, it is difficult to find real material and practical points and policies. It is very hard.
	All policies begin with the grand visionary statement, but ultimately the devil is in the detail. Where aims and objectives are set out, however laudable they are, it is important to set out in a practical way how they are to be achieved within the set financial parameters. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 96 is not necessary. The plan will be published and made available, including on the Internet, for whoever wants to see it. We have to take into account new technology even in areas of this kind. Local authorities may well have an interest in the plan, but a statutory requirement to send hard copies to each of 388 local authorities in England is unnecessary. It is also bureaucratic and not quite in touch with the 21st century. Given the concerns expressed by noble Lords earlier this week about the need to reduce bureaucracy, I am surprised that this amendment has been tabled.
	As we made clear in the prospectus, local authorities already have a dual role in the new arrangements that this Bill will secure as key providers of adult and community learning and as bodies which have a vital strategic role to play in furthering the social and economic interests of their communities. Our arrangements reflect that dual role. Clauses 22 and 23 provide ways of preparing the plans. Local LSCs will set out the provisions which LEAs will be expected to secure and the resources to be made available.
	Turning to the issue of the Secretary of State being sent a copy, we would expect DfEE officials to discuss with the LSC its proposed annual plan in the course of the normal relationship between a sponsor department and an NDPB. A specific provision to send a hard copy to the Secretary of State is therefore not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will agree to withdraw this amendment.
	Turning now to Amendment No. 98, the rolling strategy document provided for in Clause 16 will have a medium-term scope of at least three years. It is designed to identify strategic objectives and priorities for post-16 learning and as an account of the role that the LSC will play, alongside others, in pursuing those objectives and in achieving targets set by the Secretary of State--for example, the national learning targets.
	This document is not the place to set out in detail what the LSC will purchase with its budget--indeed, it may not know in detail its forward budgets for the whole of the period in question. The place for this more detailed information is in the annual plan provided for in Clause 15. I hope, therefore, that this amendment also can be withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: There is an inconsistency in the Bill and in what the noble Baroness said. The Minister's argument on Clause 14(2) was that it was important to put on the face of the Bill that the council will send a hard copy of the report to the Secretary of State. Her argument on Clause 15 is that of course the Secretary of State will receive a hard copy of the report and therefore there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. That seems to me to be an inconsistent argument. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Strategy]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 7, line 34, after ("a") insert ("workforce development").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Although Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 are grouped together, they are separate amendments and I shall speak to them separately.
	Amendment No. 97 seeks to require the National Learning and Skills Council to formulate a development strategy at national level which expressly reflects national workforce needs. The amendment picks up the proposal from the National Skills Task Force that the Government should develop a national workforce development strategy.
	As we know, in this country we have for many years had problems in terms of skills and we suffer from inherent skill shortages from time to time. The concept of the national workforce development strategy is that there should be within the rolling plans to which the Minister referred a short time ago--which are the strategic plans--some consideration of how such national needs should be met.
	That, of course, is complemented by developments at local levels as well, and I shall speak later about local needs and the need to reflect local needs. We spoke a little about that in the previous amendment.
	The amendment reflects the desire of the employer organisations that proposals put forward by the Learning and Skills Council should reflect needs at a national level and also at a sectoral level, and the involvement of the national training organisations here is another example. The amendment reflects the deeply held view that the Learning and Skills Council should develop a strategic overview of its functions. Without the amendment, the clause implies that a broad overview strategy should be involved. We feel that it is important that such an overview should take account of the supply and demand situation within a broad national market.
	Turning to Amendment No. 99, this amendment concerns a somewhat different issue. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Learning and Skills Council to consult with government departments other than the Department for Education and Employment and to consult also with local authorities. Again, we are looking not at the question of consultation at a local level but of consultation at a national level. Other government departments and local authorities are important as providers, commissioners and users of skills and it is important that there should be some discussion with them. The amendment is, if you like, seeking that joined-up government be put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: On the issue of workforce development, let me reassure the noble Baroness that that will be an important part of the LSC's remit. That is partly why we have said that 40 per cent of the members of the national and local LSCs will have substantial recent business or commercial experience, together with the national chair and most local chairs. The LSC will work at both national and local levels with a wide range of other bodies with an interest in workforce development.
	At national level this will include NTOs, trade unions, the Small Business Service, RDAs, Investors in People UK and the UfI. Working with these partners the national LSC will be responsible for articulating a clear agenda for action on workforce development, for driving this forward through its local arms and for working in partnership with others. For example, it will work very closely with NTOs in developing frameworks for sector workforce development plans.
	Local councils will prepare workforce development plans for their areas, taking account of the national framework and the skill priorities identified by the RDAs. We have a real opportunity with the new arrangements to build on the success of TECs, with initiatives such as Investors in People, and to strengthen links between learning and work--links which are at the heart of what we are striving to achieve.
	But the amendment that we are considering, in seeking to emphasise the importance of workforce development, would mean that the LSC's three-year rolling strategy would only cover workforce development and nothing else. I am sure the noble Baroness does not intend this. I hope that she will withdraw Amendment No. 97. I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that the plans that the LSC draws up at both national and local levels will give full weight to workforce development.
	The sentiment behind Amendment No 99 very much chimes with our expectation that the LSC should be an inclusive body which reaches out and works effectively with all relevant partners. We want to see meaningful consultation ingrained into its culture. We expect that the people we recruit to the most senior posts will be people who can network effectively across a wide range of interests.
	As I said, we certainly intend that the LSC will consult widely with all its key partners in putting together its strategic plans. We stated that clearly in the LSC prospectus. This will be essential if it is to draw on the experience that others can offer.
	However, we see no reason to set this out as a specific obligation in the Bill. Consultation is already required with a number of bodies, including LEAs, on the national LSC's guidance to its local arms. There is also already provision for wide consultation on the important local plans, and we will consider how we might secure the involvement of all local authorities in this. Key partners will also have a direct input into the direction of the national LSC through their links with members of the council itself, and, of course, with members of the adult and young people's learning committees, and through links at sectoral, regional and local level.
	With these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I take on board the reassurances she has given us on both issues. It is good to have it on the record and I am grateful to her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Supplementary functions]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 8, line 19, leave out subsection (4).

Baroness Blatch: Often when one wants to have a discussion on a matter, the only way to do it is to table an amendment. It will therefore come as some relief to the Committee that I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 100.
	I understand that there is some qualification about how the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, will impose new powers or duties on the council for post-16 education. I have not had time to study the qualification, but I admit also that I have always found legalese difficult to read. I am anxious to know whether any order imposing a new power or duty would be caught by regulations that would need to come before both Houses through either the negative or the affirmative procedure. If it would not, I should be concerned to know that it should do so. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: The provision in the Bill follows the precedent of Section 8(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which gives the Secretary of State a similar power in relation to the funding council. That power has been used on only one occasion, when last year the Further Education Funding Council took responsibility for the Government's new dance and drama provisions for talented students.
	Just as the power under the 1992 Act has provided a useful safety net for an important scheme which the primary powers of the FEFC would otherwise rule out, so I should expect the similar powers in respect of the LSC to be used rarely. The Government set out their reasons for advocating the use of secondary legislation in that area to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The noble Baroness will know that that expert committee did not see any need to draw any difficulties over such a power to the attention of the House.
	The Secretary of State's power to confer or impose supplementary powers or duties on the LSC is limited in two important ways. First, any supplementary powers or duties must be within the ambit of the Secretary of State's functions. Secondly, they must be relevant to the provision of facilities for post-16 education and training. In response to the noble Baroness's question, as I understand it those regulations would be of the negative rather than the affirmative kind. I hope that that is to some extent the discussion that the noble Baroness sought on that topic. Having listened to what has been said, no doubt she will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister. I wanted to know whether the regulations would come through the negative or affirmative procedure. From what the Minister said, my understanding is that they will come through the negative procedure. That reassures me. If the Minister had not explained that point I was going to come back to say that I recollect seeing a negative order concerning dance and drama when the power was transferred. I am looking across to the Front Bench opposite for nods in my direction, but there are none. I was simply going to ask for the same facility, but if the regulations are to come through the negative procedure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: I have tabled the Motion because Clause 18 begs so many questions that I believed that the best course of action would be to oppose it standing part of the Bill in order to try to discover exactly what it means.
	We know that there are training and enterprise councils on independent corporations, but also that they have considerable assets. A number of issues arise from that point. First, the TUPE arrangements for the transfer of staff. I know that the Government have not yet pronounced on that matter. It would be helpful to know quite what that is to be. As I understand it, the assets of the training and enterprise councils will, as they wind up, in fact revert to the Secretary of State. If that is the case, where do those assets lie? Do they become subject to possible disposal or acquisition on the part of the clause?
	Secondly, the powers relating to the acquisition and disposal of land and property are considerable. In Clause 18(2)(c), there is a reference to investing, "sums not immediately needed"--in other words, if there is money in the purse, there is the facility for investing. However, Clause 18(3)(c) states that they would be prevented from,
	"hold[ing] shares in a company, or otherwise becom[ing] a member of a company, unless the Secretary of State consents".
	Does that mean that the only place that the money may lie is in a building society or a bank? It is difficult to know how free a body would be to invest money that is not around. We all know the importance of that: if money is lying around and not appreciating, its value is of course depreciating.
	I turn to the reference to "gifts". I am slightly unnerved to see that the council will be free to accept gifts. I am not quite sure what that will mean and what the accountability system for receiving gifts and accepting financial resources will be. I am assuming that the reference to accepting financial resources relates to other providers in the field, but, again, I do not know. Subsection (3) states that the council will not be able to borrow or to lend money, with the caveat,
	"unless the Secretary of State consents".
	I know that there have been instances from time to time where money has been lent. I am not so sure whether the local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham was given powers to lend money to some of the establishments in its authority because it was in particular difficulty this year. Not surprisingly, the Prime Minister has a direct interest in that authority. I do not know whether or not that was the reason for permission being given. I am concerned about the powers to lend and the criteria that would be used by the Secretary of State in agreeing to allow the council to lend moneys.
	I have many questions about the clause, including the issue of risk. Will the Minister make some comment about risk: risk management; the degree to which the council will be able to engage in any activity when it is preserving and conserving its funds; the degree to which risk will be allowed and could be managed; and the degree to which the council would be accountable? Precisely which bodies would be making their land, property and assets available to the council for disposal and acquisition? I oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.

Lord Bach: I fear that I shall not be able to answer all the important questions raised by the noble Baroness. Of course, Clause 18 gives the national LSC additional general powers which it may exercise to enable it to perform its core functions. As she will know, that is a standard approach to ensure that an independent corporate body such as the LSC has the necessary powers to underpin its main functions. The powers enabling the LSC to form companies or take shares in a company may in practice involve facilitating appropriate partnership working at the local and national level for local workforce development or regeneration and economic development objectives. The powers of the FEFC were more limited in that area. If the LSC is to play an important role in local partnerships, as TECs do now, it is important that it has the appropriate powers.
	I am sure that most noble Lords would support such activities which can add value and make a difference in local areas, in particular through levering in wider resources. Clause 18 provides the LSC with important supplementary powers to enable it to play the strategic powerful role in the community which we advocated in the White Paper and in the prospectus.
	As regards TUPE and the assets of TECs, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to be patient and to wait until we debate Amendment No. 202 after Clause 84. That may be a more appropriate point to discuss assets.
	As regards lending money, the circumstances in which we see that as both possible and a good thing, would be, for example, to help a provider with cashflow difficulties, and possibly also in the field of individual loans.
	The noble Baroness referred to the use of gifts. That is nothing new. There is a provision to the same effect under Schedule 1 of the Act relating to the FEFC. As to her other detailed questions, it may be that some will be answered when we deal with the later amendment. Those are the considerations that we ask the Committee to bear in mind when asking that the clause stand part.

Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may follow up the noble Lord's remarks with a couple of extra questions. I should like him to take advantage of the extensive amount of time that we have available to us this evening to see whether he might reach into the resources available to him and give some explanation as to the kind of balance that the council will be asked to apply in regard to assets, risks and rewards.
	The wording of the clause is very strange. It seems that the council will be able to speculate without restraint in land and property. It will be able to enter into contracts--so it can dance around the futures market if it can find a good reason for doing so. But it will not be able to lend money--in other words it will not be able to place money with a bank or building society, because that is letting out money at interest; it is lending money in any ordinary sense of the word. The clause provides no picture of the degree of prudence that the institution is meant to exercise. It will be allowed to invest sums, but if it cannot put them into a bank or building society (because it cannot lend) and it cannot invest in company shares, is it supposed to have some kind of weird gilt-edged "stock-swap" arrangement with the Bank of England? What exactly is going on when it comes to the management of short-term assets? I should appreciate some enlightenment from the noble Lord. I hope that he will find the time and resources to afford it to us this evening.

Lord Bach: I am glad the noble Lord thinks that we have plenty of time on our hands. I am not sure that I agree.
	The noble Lord's questions can be answered in the following way. The clause gives the LSE wide powers to manage its funds. We shall look at Hansard tomorrow and at the questions raised in order to see whether we can give a more satisfactory answer, possibly in the form of a letter.
	There is nothing unusual in Clause 18. Much of the provision is to be found in the 1992 Act in relation to the FEFC, although, as I have said, this Bill strengthens the powers of the new LSC compared to the previous organisation. We shall take away the questions and comments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and see what we can do to help answer them.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful if the noble Lord is going away to think about what has been said in the course of discussion on this clause. It raises questions about the parameters in which the provision will operate; risk and risk management; accountability; and the definition of lending. I had ruled out almost everything except putting money into a building society; but, technically, that would be lending. Therefore, some clarification would be helpful.
	I entirely take the point about TUPE. That is the only subject that I raised which will be specifically dealt with later in the Bill. I shall not insist that the clause is taken out of the Bill at this stage. However, I should welcome a fulsome, comprehensive letter answering all the points raised.
	The noble Lord referred to previous arrangements when the FEFC was set up. There is something rather different happening here. There is a national council, 47 local councils, the wind-up of 72 training and enterprise councils, and there will be a massive movement of liabilities, assets, land and property. Some understanding of how all that will be managed would be helpful. I shall not press my opposition to the clause.

Clause 18 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Local councils]:

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 8, line 31, at end insert ("and a co-ordinating committee for the five committees in London").

Lord Tope: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114 and 133 standing in my name and that of my noble friend. Perhaps I may comment also on Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
	At the start of our debates in Committee, I proposed that there should simply be one learning and skills council for each of the nine English regions. It follows that I should prefer to see one learning and skills council for the Greater London region. However, if we are to have five local learning and skills councils in Greater London, as is proposed, it is essential that there is also a strong--I stress the word "strong"--co-ordinating committee. That is not just my view, or the view from these Benches. It is widely shared across London. So far I have heard no dissent. I hope also to be able to say that by the end of our debates. The board of the London Development Partnership put forward those recommendations to the Secretary of State; namely that there should be five learning and skills councils within London, with a strong co-ordinating body, to ensure that London-wide challenges were tackled. I understood that the Secretary of State had accepted that. I hope to hear from the Minister that that is the case.
	The proposal is particularly important, with the coming of the Greater London authority, the elected mayor, and the transformation of the London Development Partnership into the fully-fledged London development agency, with all the work that that has done. It is important that a co-ordinated view comes from the learning and skills councils so that they are able to make strong representations to the various bodies in London and represent their views. I hope we shall hear from the Minister that the Government accept the need for a co-ordinating committee. I hope also for some indication of what the Government see as the necessary co-ordinating arrangements in Greater London between the five learning and skills councils that they are determined to establish.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. The amendment helpfully goes into more detail about both the suggested membership and the suggested functions of a co-ordinating committee. That is extremely helpful. My amendment was a simple proposal merely to establish the need for such a committee. Amendment No. 110 goes further and gives substance to the proposal. In general, I support the amendment.
	Perhaps I may make two comments. One is that subsection (3)(b) suggests that,
	"there shall be a majority of members with business experience and members with experience of local government".
	I certainly support the intentions behind that provision. However, I am slightly concerned about the way it is described. It would meet that requirement, for instance, if there were eight business people and one local government person, or vice versa. I suspect that that is not the intention behind the amendment but the noble Lord will no doubt make that clear.
	The other comment relates to subsection (5), which suggests that the chief executive of the co-ordinating committee should be a member. We have discussed the point previously in relation to the national council and I suspect that it will arise in relation to local councils in the future. It is our view that the chief executive should not be a member of the committee, although I accept that, if that is to be the case everywhere else in England, it will have to be the case in London. I should not wish that point to pass without comment in case it comes back to haunt me at a later stage in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dormand of Easington: Can the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tell the Committee what the co-ordinating committee is to co-ordinate? If there are five committees it is inevitable that from time to time there will be disagreement in the sense that they will regard themselves as their own masters and able to do as they wish. That question must be answered. The other side of the coin--perhaps I am wrong--is that the co-ordinating committee will be given supreme power. If I correctly understand the noble Lord, he believes that there should be one committee instead of five but that that has not come about. Therefore, he believes that the amendment will do what he thinks should be done. The noble Lord shakes his head. However, if there are five committees it is extremely unlikely that that will happen. I believe that the Committee is entitled to more information.

Lord Tope: I hesitate to respond at this stage because I suspect that in a moment the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will answer some of the points. I shook my head because I wondered whether I was being criticised for tabling an amendment which sought to achieve what I wanted to achieve. I am sure that that was not what the noble Lord meant but that was how I understood his comment.
	I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 110 in the name of his noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. Subsection (4) of the new clause describes very well the functions of a co-ordinating committee. I do not argue with that. I believe it to be a necessary and important function. The fragmentation into five local councils in London weakens the input into the London Development Agency and the GLA. There is a great need to co-ordinate the activity. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, describes the position very well.

Lord Harris of Haringey: Since there has been so much mention of the amendment standing in my name, perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to say a few words about it. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment accepted the recommendation of the board of the London Development Partnership that there should be five learning and skills councils within London. I am sure that I do not disclose privileged information when I say that the matter was widely debated by the board of the London Development Partnership and that the recommendation that there should be five learning and skills councils was agreed by only a very narrow margin.
	A number of the partners felt strongly that, given the nature of London's labour market, which is distinct from elsewhere in the country, one learning and skills council was appropriate. But even those within the board who argued for five learning and skills councils--in the end, they formed a majority--were clear about the importance of having some kind of co-ordinating body to ensure that London-wide challenges were tackled and that there was a pan-London approach to some of the issues that might arise. Therefore, the recommendation of the London Development Partnership, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment accepted, was that there should be five learning and skills councils with a co-ordinating body for the purpose of ensuring that London-wide challenges were tackled.
	Unfortunately, there is no mention of the co-ordinating body either in the Bill or in the learning and skills prospectus. I am well aware that during the Second Reading debate a number of noble Lords spoke of the need for such a London co-ordinating body. While acknowledging the recommendations of the London Development Partnership, the Minister stopped short, according to my reading, of giving a firm commitment that such a co-ordinating body for London would be established. For that reason I have put my name to the amendment which the Committee is to consider today.
	My noble friend has asked what this co-ordinating body might do. I do not believe that it is the intention of anyone that that body should act as a learning and skills council for London as a whole; otherwise, the five learning and skills councils would be redundant. But it is important that the co-ordinating body ensures that across London the skills needed throughout the city are addressed. It is extremely important for the UK economy as a whole that London gets the skills agenda right. London drives one-fifth of the nation's GDP--possibly more, depending on the definitions used--and it is in no one's interest to have skills gaps because of a failure to co-ordinate the actions of five separate councils. We must ensure that we provide the skills and expertise to enable London's economy to prosper. The co-ordinating body will assist in that process. I am sure that that is something which all Members of the Committee support.
	It is also of critical importance that an overview is taken of issues to do with social exclusion so that work on promoting skills and work in the city can be addressed across London as a whole. It is difficult to understand how the challenges can be properly addressed in isolation by five free-standing learning and skills councils if London's population is to benefit from the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. The arrangement will work only if there are strong and effective mechanisms for co-ordination to ensure that the councils, albeit using their independent expertise, are able to work together effectively.
	In addition, London will be the first city with an elected mayor and assembly, and the only city region in the United Kingdom. It is of particular importance that in London the five learning and skills councils fit their strategies to those of the London Development Agency, which the Bill supports. That can be done much more conveniently if there is proper co-ordination of their work. How can five learning and skills councils work effectively with the other vital pan-London partners, such as the Single Small Business Service for London, if there is no mechanism to do it?
	The pace of change in London is very rapid, and people must adapt their skills if they are to stay and progress in work. A recent survey by the London Skills Forecasting Unit showed that employers judged that almost 10 per cent of their employees did not have the skills to carry out their current job responsibilities. It is important that the five learning and skills councils work together to anticipate employers' needs based on a London-wide assessment and analysis of labour market information.
	I hope that the good work of the London Skills Forecasting Unit can be made available across London to the new learning and skills council. That can be best achieved if there is a co-ordinating mechanism. Therefore, a new co-ordinating body is needed with powers to enable it to predict future skill needs, secure the continued growth and vibrancy of London's economy, promote social inclusion and address the skills and training needs associated with all of those issues. I hope very much that the Minister will recognise the need to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the London Development Partnership by making provision for a powerful co-ordinating body for London.

Baroness Blatch: It is difficult to argue for yet more committees given the Bill before us. We must be the most over-governed country in the world. We start off with the European Parliament, followed by the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, rural development agencies, county councils, borough and district councils, town and parish councils, the London mayor, the London assembly and the London Development Agency. We now have a national learning and skills council and 47 local councils. The only argument that resonates with me is the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, which was then dismissed as one that had been lost some time ago; namely, that if there is real force in the argument that London should be regarded as an entity and that policies should apply to the whole of it, it is better to have a single local learning and skills council than five, which entail the creation of another body to ensure that all of them work together.
	In view of the time that will be taken up and the mixed messages that will come from the Secretary of State through the national council, and sideways through the rural development agencies, the London Development Agency, the co-ordinating council and the local councils, there is a powerful argument for saying that London should be looked at again. To have a co-ordinating committee on top of five committees is not an answer.

Lord Lucas: If we are trying to make sense of the arrangements the Government propose for London, we have to realise that London is an integrated whole with a very good transport system, which leads to large numbers of people living in certain areas and working in others, so that across the five areas of London there will be patches where the training requirements occur in one area for an industry in one area but actually the people live in a different area. There will be a great need for co-operation and indeed cross-working between the five London areas if we are to get an effective system for London.
	What concerns me, therefore, is the apparent prohibition in Clause 22(3) of a local council paying for provision in another council's area. Given the particular skills which are going to be available in the educational institutions in the middle of London and the ease of getting to the middle of London, I suggest it would always seem appropriate for some of the rarer skills in particular to be catered for in the middle as a matter of co-operation between all five councils. To have a system which appears to mean that councils cannot pay for that provision out of area, or at least cannot plan for it, would give me considerable cause for concern. I hope the Government will be able to provide reassurance that whatever structure we have for these five councils working together, they will be able to invest training money in each other's areas so that there can be a combined provision between the five areas, though the provision may be located in only one of the areas.

Lord Dormand of Easington: May I ask my noble friend, before she replies, to say whether she feels that London is unique in this respect? What about Birmingham and what about Manchester? Is this something which would have to be done in other parts of the country?

Baroness Blackstone: These amendments confirm the arrangements for managing pan-London issues for the five London councils which will cover different parts of London. I should like to say straight away to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington that neither of the cities that he mentioned are anything like the size of London and therefore rather different issues pertain.
	Let me take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude for all the work which the RDAs did, and particularly the London Development Partnership, in consulting and advising on the appropriate boundaries for all parts of England. Inevitably there were a number of difficult areas where it was hard to reach a final judgment and, not surprisingly, London was particularly difficult.
	In responding to these amendments I do not want to reopen the debate on whether there should have been one pan-London local learning and skills council or whether there should be five or more. A huge amount of argument went on about this. On the one hand, there are a variety of issues where a pan-London view is appropriate and, on the other hand, there are many issues where a local response is necessary and appropriate so that the needs of particular communities in London can be met.
	I was a little surprised by several things the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. He suggested that transport right across London is easy and integrated. I am afraid that after 18 years of Tory rule there is still quite a lot to be done to improve transport across London and I do not think it is that easy for someone living in Enfield to get to, say, Richmond. Perhaps the noble Lord knows of routes that I do not and can get there quickly. It is of course the case that in central London some specialist provision is already made available and will continue to be so in further education because it is easier to get into the centre from some parts of London than from others.
	I should also say to him that I do not think it would be terribly sensible for an individual local learning and skills council to be investing money in other such councils. This would be rather a messy approach and would get us into difficulty. That does not mean to say that councils cannot pay for out-of-area provision. Of course Clause 22 is about plans. We want them to plan for their own areas but not for others.
	The solution recommended by the London Development Partnership was for five local councils covering London, with a co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that those pan-London issues to which I referred are dealt with effectively. I was happy to accept this recommendation and I say to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I am equally happy to place on record here today our commitment to making this arrangement work in practice. However, we do not need a provision on the face of the Bill to make this happen. As your Lordships will see, we specify very little about local functions on the face of the Bill anyway. After all, the LSC is one organisation, so the duties and powers that the Bill will give are in principle available to the whole of the national LSC. We set out in the prospectus how we will capitalise on the benefits of a strong national council and strong local councils. The Bill provides for the power for the council to delegate to local arms the appropriate powers.
	The same approach has guided our thinking on the London co-ordinating mechanism, and for these reasons I do not think it is necessary to include this provision on the face of the Bill. Of course it is the case that the London council, which provides a similar co-ordinating role for local TECs, has done so without a statutory basis. I am confident that a London co-ordinating mechanism committee will do the same thing effectively in the future.
	Turning now to Amendments Nos. 110 and 133, there is a risk in specifying the functions on the face of the Bill that we build in conflicts between local councils in London and the co-ordinating mechanism. These matters are best worked out by local people in a spirit of partnership and co-operation, and I am sure that is what we will see. The exact form that the co-ordinating mechanism in London will take will be for the learning and skills council and for the five local councils to determine together. However, I should like to take the opportunity to make it clear that we do not want to see a new tier of management or bureaucracy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about this. We do not want to see this imposed on the London LSCs: nor do we want to see direction of the five London councils by some form of central committee. In fact that was not what the London Development Partnership recommended. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.

Lord Lucas: If I might help the noble Baroness with her transport problems, the north London line provides a very adequate link between Enfield and Richmond--indeed it is almost direct--and if the noble Baroness wished to do so she could stop off in Camden and visit Camden School for Girls, which is one of the jewels of the state system but which is sadly in need of new buildings which have been denied for far too long.

Baroness Blackstone: I knew when I was searching in my mind for a difficult route across London that the noble Lord would come up with a perfect answer! As for the Camden School for Girls, I know it well since my daughter attended it. It is a very good school.

Lord Tope: Perhaps I might suggest to the noble Baroness that she should try travelling between Sutton and Richmond by public transport: the link is spiritual only.
	I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record that the Government accept the need for what I think she described as a co-ordinating mechanism. I am sorry she was rather longer on what she thinks that mechanism should not be rather than on what it should be. Of course I will read carefully what she has said, but I understood her to say that this is a matter to be determined by the local learning and skills councils when they are established; in other words, quite a long way down the road. It would be helpful to have a little more from the Government, perhaps not tonight but certainly before Report stage, not on what they think the mechanism should not be but on what they think it should be.
	I understand why she thinks it would be inappropriate to have this on the face of the Bill. It is here today of course to enable us to have this debate and to try to understand better what the Government have in mind for a co-ordinating mechanism. We shall look forward to hearing more about that, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Royal Assent

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Northern Ireland Act
	Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act
	United Reformed Church Act
	Alliance & Leicester PLC (Group Reorganisation) Act
	Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Act.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8.30 p.m.]

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

House again in Committee on Clause 19.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 8, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) No less than 40 per cent. of the members shall include persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").

Baroness Blatch: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I return to this fray. The Government have talked about two things. One is that there will be a predominance of people with business experience on the councils, both national and local. Forty per cent has been mentioned in a number of places: at meetings with Ministers and when Ministers have talked to people in business and commerce.
	I was pleasantly surprised by the number of contacts that I had following our first day in Committee. People said how pleased they were that the subject had been raised but how disappointed they were at the way in which the Government appear to be extremely reluctant in relation to two matters. One concerned a definitive statement by the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the department about the 40 per cent of people with business experience. The other concerned what appeared to be prevarication about the definition of a person with business experience.
	Therefore, I believe that it is essential, especially at national level but more especially at local level, that two-thirds of the membership of the training and enterprise councils, as they exist at present, are business people; that is, people with business experience in their local areas. However, it appears that that number may be reduced not only to 40 per cent but possibly even lower. If that does not appear as a commitment in the Bill, it does not necessarily have to be repeated in every single local skills council nor, indeed, at national level. I believe that this issue is terribly important.
	One argument that has been made is that one cannot prescribe membership of the committee in advance. The reason given by the noble Baroness was that there are many representative groups out there and they will all want their slice of the action. In responding to two of my amendments on the first day in Committee concerning 25 per cent local government authority nominated membership and the 40 per cent minimum non-sector business membership, the noble Baroness went on to say, "What about all the others?" However, I believe that there is a case for this one group. I say that because there was a very specific commitment on the part of the Government.
	The Government's rationale for moving to this form of committee is that it will be business led. "Business led" is a phrase that has been used by the Secretary of State and by Ministers, and it was certainly used in the briefing that I attended--not the noble Baroness's briefing; I was unable to attend that, but I attended the previous one. It can be made a reality and meet the expectations of business, which expects that only if it is on the face of the Bill. One must take into account the Nolan procedures and the way in which appointments are made. After my amendments for the national council had been rejected, the noble Baroness said that the Government would take the best of what came through the Nolan process. Unless it is prescribed through Nolan--that is, using the Nolan procedures but prescribing that a percentage will come with business experience--then it will be an incidental rather than a positive factor.
	While I am addressing the subject of the Nolan procedures, which I know will be invoked again by whichever Minister replies to this amendment, I wish to say that I was--as, indeed, were many of my noble friends--quite shocked today at the exchange between the two Benches on one of the Starred Questions at the beginning of the day when we discussed the appointment to the Dome with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I know that that comes under a different category and that the arrangements may be different. However, one of his answers stated that we could not have advertised the post of chief executive and, certainly, we could not have used the Nolan procedures because they would take at least six months.
	In this case, there are many appointments to be made--a huge number of appointments if one takes into account the national and the 47 local councils--and the Secretary of State is responsible for all the working posts, too. Therefore, there are some real concerns about this matter. The business world is listening hard to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: We have already debated the issue of the composition of the national councils. This amendment, of course, relates to the composition of the local LSCs. I really have little more to add to the discussion that we had when we debated the national council.
	The Government oppose the equivalent amendments in respect of the local councils. I am afraid that I must disagree here with the noble Baroness. We are extremely reluctant to put quotas on the face of the Bill, either nationally or locally. Incidentally, the TECs cover a much narrower range of provision than will the local LSCs.
	I was not intending to invoke the Nolan procedures, although, of course, they will apply. However, Members of the Committee may recall that during the debate on Amendment No. 2 we made clear that stimulating and supporting workforce development will, of course, be a central part of the LSCs' remit. That is why we gave the assurance that 40 per cent of members on both the national and local LSCs will have recent business or commercial experience. Therefore, we are firmly committed to ensuring that local councils have a business perspective so that we can create a system where skills and innovation are the foundation for the success of this economy.
	However, I do not accept that it is either necessary or appropriate to set ratios in legislation. I said that it was not appropriate at the national level, and I am afraid that I do not consider it to be appropriate at the local level either. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are committed to what we have stated. I hope that she will accept that it is not necessary to put this on the face of the Bill or, indeed, appropriate, and that, therefore, she will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before I decide how to proceed with the amendment, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness to answer a question. Are the Government still committed to approximately 40 per cent on each local council and on the national council?

Baroness Blackstone: Yes. We are not distinguishing and suggesting that on only a certain number of councils will the 40 per cent apply. It should apply to all the local councils as well as to the national council.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back again. Are the Government putting on the record that there will be 40 per cent or more, but not less than 40 per cent, on each of the councils, including the national council?

Baroness Blackstone: Yes. We have said that there will be not less than 40 per cent on each of the councils.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 8, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) No less than 25 per cent. of the members shall be nominated by the local authorities within the local council area.").

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 111. Amendment No. 106 is also in this group. That amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who will deal with that.
	Amendment No. 105 returns to the issue of the nominated posts by local authorities within the local area. I shall return to the issue of business membership at the next stage of the Bill. The Nolan procedures are always invoked as part of the answer to this question. But it would be helpful if the noble Baroness is as committed as was her honourable friend Mr Wicks to local authority representation on the national and local councils. I seek a definitive commitment in relation to that.
	I shall be urging--as will, I believe, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches--that those selections should not be made simply by the Secretary of State through those procedures but that there should be nominations to which the Nolan procedures would apply.
	Amendment No. 108 seeks a change of emphasis. This is an important point. We want members of a local council not to be members also of the national council. The national council will comprise only between 12 and 16 people. The idea that it needs to take anybody who is also serving on a local council is extraordinary. The selections will be made through rather complicated procedures. Anybody who becomes a member of the national and/or local council will be fairly important either in the field of business and commerce, with a background in national training organisations, with a background in local government and so on. The idea that such people would have the time in their lives to be dual members of a national committee, which will be relatively small, and a local committee, is absurd. The principle of dual membership should not be supported. That is my rationale for that amendment. Amendment No. 109 goes to the same argument.
	Amendment No. 111 seeks to remove paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 2 which states:
	"A notice under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
	Again, the Secretary of State has a handle on absolutely everything to do with any activity whatever in the Bill. He appoints the members, the chairmen, the chief executives. He appoints every single member of the 47 councils. He also appoints all the members of staff to all those councils. It is not possible in practical terms to deliver that level of control and I do not believe it is entirely democratic. I beg to move.

Lord Tope: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 106 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford.
	I said earlier in the debate that I have some sympathy with the Government to the extent of not wishing to be prescriptive on the face of the Bill about the exact percentages of various categories of membership. Therefore, I prefer the wording in Amendment No. 106 which states, slightly less prescriptively, that,
	"the Council shall ensure that the majority are representative of the different providers of education and training within the area, and of local authorities, and that all members have experience relevant to the Council's functions".
	I turn in particular to the local authority question. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred to the meeting which we both attended at which the Under-Secretary of State, Malcolm Wicks, said quite specifically that each council would have as members representatives of the local authorities. He was unequivocal about that.
	So far in the proceedings in this House, I have not heard such an unequivocal statement from the Minister. I hope that that is about to change. I should have checked and I did not but, if my memory serves me right, on Second Reading she said that the councils would have representatives who were knowledgeable of local government. She is shaking her head. Perhaps I have got it wrong and she will correct that when she replies. But such an expression could embrace a very wide number of people.
	Let us leave aside for the moment the proportion. Local government is concerned that it should be represented as of right on each learning and skills council. That is extremely important, not only for local authorities as providers, which is important, but these days even more so because they will soon have a duty, under the Local Government Bill also before this House, to promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area. Therefore the community leadership role of a local authority is equally important in that regard.
	We really need to hear from the Government clearly and unequivocally exactly how local government is to be represented on each learning and skills council. Amendment No. 106 to which I am now speaking will at least confirm that they and other providers should form the majority.
	Some would go so far as to say that local government should be nominating a number of members. That is an important point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said, under the proposals in this Bill, the Secretary of State will have power to appoint 600 or 700 people, most of whom he will certainly not know. He will have to be guided by somebody else's say so. It seems to me that if people are to be representatives of local government in any sense, then local government should have the right to choose its own representatives, subject to the Nolan procedures. Nobody argues about that. We understand that. We do not just want place people on those relatively small councils. We want people with the relevant knowledge and experience who will play a full part there.
	Local government can provide the required proportion of such people. I hope to hear a clearer response from the Government than I have heard so far.

Baroness Blackstone: I hope that I have already made it clear that we see a very major role for local government in the new arrangements. Local government will be a central partner, not just in providing and securing learning opportunities through schools and in adult and community education but also as organisations which can provide both vision and leadership for local communities.
	Indeed, under the arrangements, local government will have a far more important role to play in post-16 education than was allocated under the previous government. So as I said on Second Reading and earlier this week in Committee, I am rather surprised by the Conservative Opposition's new-found commitment to local government's involvement here.
	But the new arrangements will offer local authorities greater influence over the whole range of post-16 provision since local LSCs will be required to consult on their plans and set out in them the LEA contribution. I am happy to confirm also to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we expect the local LSCs to have someone with current local authority experience. I do not believe that those are quite the words which the noble Lord used.
	But it would be wrong to go further and build in 25 per cent of places for local authority representatives. We want members who are appointed on merit because of what they can offer rather than to be delegates of other organisations.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 106. It is vital that all members of local councils have experience which is relevant to councils' functions. They will not be much good on those councils if they do not have such experience. We shall publish a specification of the knowledge, understanding and skills for which we are looking among LSC members when we advertise those posts.
	We have already set out in the prospectus that we expect local LSC members to understand the needs of employers; employees, through trade union representation; local communities, through local authority experience; people who are disadvantaged or excluded, through voluntary sector experience; young people and adult learners; people with special learning needs, learning difficulties or disabilities; and people who face discrimination. That is quite a long list already.
	We have also said that the views of learning providers should be represented on local LSCs, but that the vast majority of those serving on councils should speak for the views of the consumers of the learning system--individuals who may benefit from what the system offers, and employers who will benefit from the greater skills that people have obtained from the system.
	That is a vital point. We want a system that is driven by the needs of individuals and communities and of employers and the economy. It would be wrong, given that, to have a majority of places for providers, as this amendment proposes. I must therefore ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
	I was a little surprised to see Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 as I can see no reason why a member of a local council should not also serve on the national council if so appointed. Indeed, there may be benefits from some cross-fertilisation of local and national experiences for both councils. At the same time I entirely accept what lies behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, that that will not be a frequent occurrence. Few people could find the time to do both.
	Any potential conflicts of interest for a national council member who is also a member of a local council are adequately and comprehensively dealt with in that part of Schedule 1 that is dedicated to "Members interests".
	On Amendment No. 111, the power of the national council to remove a local council member from office is a necessary one. The council must be able to remove members, for example, if they have failed to attend local council meetings for a substantial period, or if they have otherwise become unable or unfit to carry out their responsibilities. They may, for example, become mentally ill. But in order that local council members feel secure, for example, to speak out against what they may see as incorrect or unfair policies by the LSC, it is important that that power to remove local council members is balanced by the need to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that such a measure is justified. It is a matter of checks and balances. I believe that this is correct.
	In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw this amendment.

Lord Tope: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, decides what she will do, perhaps I can tease out a little more from the Minister as to exactly what she means. My memory of what she has just said is a little better than my memory of what she said at Second Reading. I believe I heard her say that each local council will have someone with current local government experience. Does that mean one person out of the 12 to 16 members? Does it mean at least one, or does the Minister envisage that there will be more than one? Does "current local government experience" mean that that person will be an elected member, or a council officer, or someone who experiences a local government service? What exactly does the phrase mean?

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can add to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Having just listened to the Minister I do not believe that she said "each local council" or "each council both local and national". The matter would be made clearer if the Minister were able to use the words that she used for the business representation.

Baroness Blackstone: I do not believe that we want to be as precise as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, expects us to be. We are looking for the best people. We want to appoint people on merit, people who have something to add to the work of the councils. Some elected members have such qualities and some appointed officials and officers of local authorities may have such qualities. It may be right in some cases that a chief executive or a chief education officer may be appointed to one of the councils. Similarly, in some cases it may be appropriate that an experienced elected member, who has the kind of wisdom and expertise that will be needed, can bring that experience to bear in the context of the work of the council.
	I believe it would be quite wrong for the Government to constrain applications to a particular category from people with local government experience. We would like to see applications for membership of the councils from a wide range of people who have--I shall use the phrase again--current local authority experience. I would expect that to be the case on all these councils. I do not believe I can go further than that. I hope that that helps the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

Lord Tope: The Minister has made clearer what she has in mind. I now want to press her on the number or the proportion of such members. She has been specific in saying that at least 40 per cent of the members will be people with business experience. I do not ask her to give a precise figure, but can she give an indication of the number of people who will have current local government experience? Will it be just one person? This is a matter of considerable concern to people in local government who will want to know to what extent, as well as in what way, they will be represented. One person out of 16 is a fairly minimal representation and four or five out of 16 is a substantial representation. What sort of role does she have in mind for local government?

Baroness Blackstone: I thought I had made the point clear. We are looking for applications from people with merit in relation to the kind of criteria that we are specifying for membership of the councils. We are not specifying a particular proportion. All we have said is that at least one person should have current local government experience. In some LSCs it may be one person or in others it may be two, three or four, depending on the people who come forward.

Baroness Blatch: I understand that the Minister will not give a percentage or say how many members on each council, local and national, will have current local government experience, but is it right that there will be someone who has that experience?

Baroness Blackstone: I shall repeat what I have already said. We expect that any local LSC will have on it someone with current local authority experience. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: No, it does not. The Minister did not preface the 40 per cent business representation by saying "we expect". She was unequivocal and said that there will be 40 per cent of business people, although of course they will be subject to the Nolan procedures. There has been no definitive commitment to there being local authority representatives in the form of one or more people on each council, both local and national. We shall continue to press the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert--
	("( ) The council must elect one of its members as Chief Executive for a period not exceeding 5 years.").

Baroness Blatch: I know that the Clerks do not read in Hansard every word that we say, but on Monday I did ask that the word "Chairman" should be substituted for the words "Chief Executive". I gave the Committee notice that that was what I meant. I have no idea whether I am culpable or what happened between me writing this amendment and it arriving in the Public Bill Office. I accept responsibility for the fact that the amendment, as written, is wrong and that "Chief Executive" should read "Chairman". My arguments are the same as I used in an earlier debate. There is probably a marginal argument for the Secretary of State to say who shall be the chairman of the national council but at local level the council itself should be able, from within its membership, to elect a chairman.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said at the previous stage that the Government were minded to consider a period of office not less than three and not more than five years. That is normally put on the statute book or in regulation, and I should like the Government to consider doing that. If not, we shall certainly find a way that uses the words of the Minister; that is, that it would be for a period of three years, not exceeding five. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness indicated in the earlier debate that there was a mistake in this amendment and that we should understand it to refer to a chairman and not a chief executive. Although it has not been altered, I am happy to take the amendment in that way.
	The post of local chair is a pivotal one in the LSC. Local chairs will exercise a real influence on local council decisions, on resource allocation and priorities, and on the appointment and removal--I hope not too frequently--of key staff such as the local executive director. On average the local LSCs may have budgets in excess of £100 million. In those circumstances it is surely reasonable that the Secretary of State has the final say in appointing local chairs. We will look to appoint people who are widely respected for the contribution that they have made to various interests and who can manage and take forward local views in a positive and constructive way.
	The amendment would have the effect of delaying the appointments of the first local chairs since the whole of the local councils would need to be appointed before the chairs could be identified. That would cause serious delays in establishing the local LSCs since the local chairs have a key role in appointing the directors who will set up the local arms. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Again, it is a disappointing answer. It strikes me that certainly the national council, which is only 12 to 16 members, and the local councils, which are of a relatively modest size, will have members capable of making the contribution described by the noble Baroness. One would want all members of those councils to have the experience which gives them a real understanding of the functions and powers of the council, and that they should be capable of being chairman of it.
	Tensions will exist in the councils because they are all given equal status. There will be one chairman who will be totally full-time and one chief executive. The relationship between the two will be interesting. One is a deliverer of the policies and the other a policymaker. But here we have a mixture of the two. I am disappointed but may return to the matter at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 [Local councils]:
	[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Page 58, line 42, leave out paragraph 4 and insert--
	("4.--(1) After seeking the advice of a local council's chairman, the Council must appoint one of its employees as the director of the local council.
	(2) The Council may appoint such of its other employees as it thinks fit to act as the staff of a local council.").

Lord Bach: I move this amendment in the name of my noble friend and invite the Committee to see it in conjunction with Clause 20 of the Bill. We set out in the White Paper and in the LSC prospectus how we would combine the benefits of a single unitary organisation with local delivery and decision-making. The LSC will be one corporate body working through and delegating functions to its local arms; that is to say, the local councils. The employees of the LSC at national and local level will be employees of the one organisation, subject to the same terms and conditions. Of course, in practice local councils will be responsible for selection, recruitment and management of their staff. But it is important for the character and the success of the one unitary organisation that staff should be appointed as LSC staff.
	Therefore on reflection the Government do not believe that the current wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 accurately provides for that policy. Its effect would be that staff appointed at the local level would be employees of the local council under separate terms and conditions from other employees of the LSC. The Government's amendment provides that it is the LSC as a single body which appoints employees, though in practice, through the delegation of functions to the local councils, all recruitment decisions will be made at local level.
	In the case of the director of the local council, the amendment makes clear that the local chairman will play a crucial role. The director can only be appointed after the LSC has sought the advice of the local chairman. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that we are not able to continue dialogue on the whole issue of transferring posts and the TUPE arrangements until we reach Amendment No. 210. This is the second time today that we have come across an issue involving some understanding of the degree to which the local skills councils and the national skills council will have to absorb existing staff, the degree to which their conditions of work will transfer with them, and also some of the financial consequences of that happening. If we are not to hear about that until Amendment No. 210, I rest my comments on the record that it is an area about which we should like more information.

Lord Bach: Of course we hear what the noble Baroness says.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 113:
	Page 59, line 18, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("Committees
	8.--(1) A local council must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee.
	(2) Members of a committee may be (but need not be) members of the council.").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The amendment proposes that local councils will mirror the national body by establishing two separate committees, one for young people and another for adults, with duties parallel to those of the national committees. The interests of adults and young people frequently diverge. Local councils will be the executive arm of the national body and it is vital that the needs of the two separate communities are effectively represented locally. Replicating the two committees locally will ensure wider representation and a greater range of interests being heard.
	We are particularly anxious that there will be adequate representation for adult learners whose needs, with the current emphasis on the social exclusion agenda, may tend to be overlooked locally. The Government must consider the amendment seriously. If they are to live up to their words that the ethos behind the Bill is to encourage bottom-up rather than top-down initiatives, it is important to provide a focus for such initiatives locally.

Baroness Blackstone: I agree with the noble Baroness that the LSC should focus clearly on adult learning as well as the needs of young people. An approach that will attract adult learners will often be different from that appropriate for 16 to 19 year-olds. To ensure that the needs of both groups are fully reflected in the LSC's decision-making, we have made provision in Schedule 3 for a young people's learning committee, whose role will be appropriate at a national level. Local LSCs will wish to seek the advice of experts and may want to establish committees for that purpose. Nothing in the Bill prevents them doing so.
	There are many circumstances in which that would be beneficial and will happen. Our guidance to the council will reflect that view. We want to preserve a local flexibility to allow LSCs to manage their own business, so it would not be appropriate to stipulate that every LSC must establish two committees in the form proposed. The decision to set up an adult or young people's committee should rest with the local councils. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I much appreciate the emphasis that the Minister placed on local flexibility. It is valuable to have on record the Government's expectation that there may frequently be local replication of the two committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Functions of local councils]:
	[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Guidance to local councils]:
	[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 116:
	Page 9, line 7, at end insert ("including the need to ensure maximum flexibility in the application of funding formulae at local level, with the aim of ensuring that good sixth-form provision can be sustained, and where possible, strengthened").

Lord Tope: With this, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. It is extremely important to maintain maximum flexibility in the application of funding formulae locally to ensure that good sixth form provision can be sustained and strengthened. It is important also that local LSCs have the flexibility to vary national guidelines and funding tariffs, so that they may respond to local circumstances and needs.
	It is crucial that LSCs locally are free to enter into partnership agreements such as regeneration projects. LSCs, using their flexible local budgets, also need to complement national, regional and local priorities on ERDF funding, mainstream funding as it contributes to economic development and regeneration and area-based programmes such as the single regeneration budget and the new deal for communities. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 117 and 118. I am not possessive about the forms of wording because I think that we are all approaching the same issue though in a slightly different way--the importance of flexibility at a local level. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned some of the complications that arise at local level, like the way in which the single regeneration budget and some of the local initiatives work.
	I should like to give a little force to some of the things that have been said by Ministers in the course of our discussions on the Bill; for example, that there will be room for local flexibility. Indeed, in at least one of the briefing meetings that I attended 15 per cent was mentioned and I have also heard 10 per cent mentioned.
	In determining allocations it seems to me that a proportion of a local council's budget that is used flexibly at local level ought to be determined and made public. In that way, the local council would not simply receive a sum of money which then moves onwards, with people literally sitting on the edge of their seats wondering just how much will be allowed to deal with very local and parochial issues as they arise. I will either support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or ask that my amendment be taken into account.

Lord Bach: I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 116. The Government have already said on a number of occasions in Committee that we want to ensure that young people have the best possible range and choice of good quality opportunities at this critical 16 to 19 stage. We have also said that effective school sixth forms have a key role to play in our drive to raise standards. I repeat: sixth forms that are providing good quality provision have nothing to fear from these proposals. We promised a real-term safeguard of funding levels where numbers are maintained.
	We have gone on to make it clear that LSC funding to LEAs for their school sixth forms must be spent on schools with sixth forms and not diverted into other services. We have also said that LEAs will continue to be able to add, if they wish, to the funds provided by the LSC for the sixth forms in their area. This is important local flexibility. But the Government could not subscribe to a concept of "maximum local flexibility" in legislation. This would inevitably lead to funding decisions that were arbitrary and incoherent--indeed, quite the opposite of what I am sure all of us want. The amendment speaks of sustaining and strengthening good provision, but that is what the Bill is about right across post-16 learning. It is also a fundamental part of our approach to school sixth forms. We argue that the amendment is unnecessary.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 117, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The budgets set for local LSCs will of course influence how they will achieve their objectives. We would expect there to be a dialogue between the local arms of the LSC and the national arm about resources and what local arms can sensibly be expected to achieve with the resources available. Without in any way being discourteous, we say that this amendment simply states the obvious. Do we really need extra provisions in legislation to underline this obvious practicality? We suggest not.
	Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. The prospectus published in December made clear our commitment to ensuring that local LSCs have proper discretion over LSC money spent local. In particular, we have made it clear that the local LSCs will make the important decisions about how the LSC's main budgets should be allocated. They will be able to exercise discretion to vary the rate of payment that the LSC's national tariff sets out for different types of provision. A local LSC might want to exercise such discretion where, for example, it thinks that this would help to tackle local shortages of good quality training for skills that are in particular demand.
	It may help the Committee to know that the Government envisage that 10 to 15 per cent of LSC budgets will be for provision that is not included in the national tariff and will be made at the discretion of the local LSC, covering, for example, improvements in the quality of local provision and workforce development. We are currently consulting through the Funding and Allocations Consultation Document on how the LSC's funding system should work and what sort of local flexibility will be required. We intend that each local LSC will have a substantial local initiatives fund. However, we do not think that it is appropriate to include on the face of the Bill this level of detail as to what the national LSC's guidance should contain. I hope that the comments that I have made on this series of amendments will persuade the Committee not to pursue their amendments.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, concludes the debate, perhaps I may say a few words. I am grateful that the Minister referred yet again to 10 to 15 per cent which will be considered for local discretion. There is going to be more than a passing interest in the mechanism for this. I know that there is consultation going on at the moment.
	I wonder if I can ask two questions. First, is it likely that that consultation process will be sufficiently advanced for this Chamber to take some account of it during the final stages of the Bill? Will it be available in time and will we have some understanding of the Government's thinking in time for my colleagues in another place to be able to take it into account when considering any amendments to the Bill?
	Secondly, in the way in which the noble Lord has spelt it out, what I am not sure about is whether the consultations going on at the moment envisage actually bidding for or negotiating for varying amounts or percentages of discretion, or whether once the amount of money for discretion has been determined at national level that will be applied evenly across all local skills councils. If it is to be a bartering system, then it is going to be very complicated and extremely time consuming. If it is going to be evenly applied, it is going to cause rough justice. I am not sure what is contained within the document so far as the consultations are concerned. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to throw some light on the matter.

Lord Bach: I am afraid that I shall not be able to throw much light on the second question that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asks. As I understand it, this is general consulting through the funding and allocations consultation document. I cannot be more precise than that this evening.
	I can be more precise about when the consultation period ends: it will be in April. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have to work out where that fits into the passage of this Bill, as I will also. We hope, of course, that the Bill will have passed through this House by April. Whether it will have passed through the other place is a much more vexed question.

Lord Tope: I look at the clock now and think it is a moot point whether it will have passed through this House by April. I am grateful to the Minister for some helpful replies. I am bound to say that I was not at all surprised to hear him say--I speak as someone who has served in local government for a long time--that this Government do not favour maximum local flexibility. I think that is probably an unnecessary statement from any government. It was a helpful reply in places. We will study it with interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos 117 to 119 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 9, line 10, leave out ("the regional development agencies and").

Baroness Blatch: I shall not be the most popular person in the Chamber on this set of amendments. The Government have an agenda. They have had an agenda since they came to office. It is to see the demise of our county councils and go to regional development councils or regional district councils, whatever they are called.

Lord Bach: I think that the noble Baroness means regional development agencies because that is what they are.

Baroness Blatch: No. I am not talking about regional development agencies. I am talking about regional development agencies being a forerunner for what the Government really have in mind which is to go for elliptic bodies in the regions, whether they are called councils or anything else. It has been very widely and vocally talked about by Labour councillors and Labour members up and down the land. Certainly, many Labour councillors in county councils believe that this is on the agenda. I have believed it for a very long time. One has not only to look at this piece of legislation, but at local government Acts coming through the system or already on the statute book, the setting up of the development agencies themselves, and the way in which local authorities--whether Ministers are prepared to admit it or not--are being air-brushed out. The rural development agencies are very high profile in this Bill. It is difficult to get either local education authorities or local authorities included in the Bill in this respect.
	If the noble Baroness replies to this group of amendments, she will not be able to resist taking yet another jibe at my "conversion" with regard to local government. I say straight away that I have been involved with local government and have a strong commitment to local government. I believe that local government has a strong role to play. However, the scenario we are discussing is different. As I said on Tuesday, when we were in power--the noble Baroness said that we bypassed local government when we were in power--we devolved down to local communities. We sought to devolve power to schools, colleges and institutions at ground level. However, in this Bill the devolution operates upwards to councils that comprise bigger units than local councils and which are more remote from local people. These larger councils are governed by the Secretary of State and the national council. It is very much a "top down" system.
	Given the superior position of rural development agencies in this Bill, I want to do my bit of "air brushing" by means of the amendments we are discussing and delete certain references to the agencies. I suspect that I am not wrong in expecting the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government to stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue of rural development agencies. However, I am committed to the tiers of government that are most local to the people on the ground. I still firmly believe that devolution must take place downwards to institutions at the local level to enable them to respond to needs with regard to skills, education and links with employment. The best way to achieve that is to bypass the raft of areas in this Bill that place rural development agencies in a superior position vis-a-vis local authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Dormand of Easington: I hope that I have not misunderstood the noble Baroness. She certainly has not always been opposed to non-elected bodies. She will recall the experience of Teeside Development Corporation, of which I had the privilege to be deputy chairman. The Committee may not be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as a supervisor, as it were, in that area. I do not want to make the noble Baroness blush too much--especially as I make these comments--but she was held in the highest possible regard in the north-east. She initiated vast improvements in that area. That legacy remains. There is a role for both attitudes that have been mentioned; I do not want to be too academic about that point. However, I felt that I had to make those remarks.

Lord Tope: The noble Baroness referred throughout her speech to "rural development agencies". I believe that she intended to refer to regional development agencies as that is contained in the amendment. The noble Baroness nods her head. I have every sympathy with her confusion with all the acronyms here as I also have some difficulty with them.
	The noble Baroness was half right in her remarks. She is right in that I profoundly disagree with her. I congratulate her on being able to detect in the Government an enthusiasm for elected regional government that I have not been able to detect yet. She appears to believe that the Liberal Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on that matter. If we are in that position, it is only because it is the best way for us to give them a hard shove in that direction, and that is what we shall wish to do. If this Government have an agenda, secret or otherwise--I would hope that they would publish it--to move to elected regional government on any time-scale (but preferably a short one) I would certainly greatly welcome that. However, at this time of night and with this Bill I shall resist the temptation to talk about what local government structure might be beneath the regional level. Clearly that is an important debate for another time and another place. The noble Baroness was right to believe that if the occasion arises I shall certainly resist the amendments we are discussing.

Lord Bach: I have learned a lot from the noble Baroness tonight. I have learnt what government policy is as regards the future of local government. It may be that I am unaware of a press statement on the subject today. I have been taken by surprise and I am unable to answer the noble Baroness. My belief is that she is wrong about our policy, much to the chagrin of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who will neither push us with one shoulder or another. We shall go on doing what is right.
	As regards the noble Baroness's support for local government, to coin a phrase, "Methinks the Lady doth protest a bit too much". I do not believe that anyone could say that removing further education from local education control into quangos was a pro-local government move. I am delighted to hear support for the Government's policy on devolution. It is not something I have heard before from the Conservative Opposition. However it is too late to join in political argument at this stage. I know clearly what the noble Baroness means by her amendments and she knows equally clearly that we must reject them.

Baroness Blatch: That was enjoyable. When the unitary authorities were first debated even in embryonic form and a long time ago, it was the policy of our Benches that there should be unitary authorities at local level--I am not talking about parish councils but district councils--and that the county should go and there should be regional, elected bodies. I can remember the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, saying that she supported that not only in this Chamber, but equally in my part of the world which is East Anglia. If it is not a written manifesto-type policy, it has certainly been a philosophy and policy which has been thought about. There was the idea that a move to unitary authority status would be messy and that it would be better to have a uniform approach at local level.
	I did not expect a different answer. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, most warmly for what he said. He will know that I became extremely attached to the North-East. I still visit there and see many people in that area. The noble Lord made a good point in saying that I was supportive. I remain supportive of the way that the system worked. What I was particularly supportive of was the way in which all the bodies worked so co-operatively together. I refer, of course, to the non-elected bodies such as the development corporation and the local authorities. Indeed, local authorities served on the board of the development corporation and made an amazingly positive contribution. I was very supportive of that body and the way in which local authorities worked with it and became involved in the economic and social regeneration of the area. The local authority was very strong in that area and it still is. In the area for which I was responsible it has moved almost uniformly to the unitary authority and the county council has gone.
	But I would not like to see a regional development agency in that area. As far as I understand it, at the moment there is a very good regional network of co-operation headed by many of the same people with whom I was involved when I was there. I still jealously believe that the North-East turned co-operative partnerships into an art form. They were practical, visionary and very effective. But that does not deter me from trying to persuade Members of the Committee, but very forlornly, that rural development agencies in this context should not be in the Bill with such a high profile. My concern is that this Bill is a stepping stone for regional government and the demise of our county councils.

Lord Bach: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. I understand and appreciate her strong views on regional development agencies, but is she speaking for the official Opposition in moving these amendments?

Baroness Blatch: Certainly I have discussed the matter with my colleagues in the education team. It is uniformly supported that we do not like the Bill. We feel that if coherence is to be brought to 16-plus education, this is not the way to do it. In tying in all the partnerships--from the Secretary of State, down through the national council, local councils, RDAs and lifelong learning partnerships--the Government have been resistant to bringing in local education authorities. We do not think that the regional development agencies should appear in the context of this Bill. They are a fact of life; they have already been established by the Government and there is no way that one can take them out of existence, but that is not the point of my amendments.
	My amendments provide that where regional development agencies are referred to in the Bill, local authorities should be in that position. I have tried hard, as have some noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to introduce local authorities specifically into the Bill. We are told that they will be consulted anyway, or they are part of the tapestry, or they will be influential. But why should they be less influential than the regional development agencies?

Lord Dormand of Easington: I do not have to remind the noble Baroness--I am sure she knows--that the reason is that on the regional development agencies there is strong local authority representation. That was the original intention when the Labour Government set them up.

Baroness Blatch: I do not argue with that. But I still think that local authorities in their own right are closest to the people. They should in the Bill have at least equal status--I would argue superior status--to the regional development agencies.
	If the Minister does not wish to come back on this issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 9, line 10, after ("agencies") insert (", lifelong learning partnerships").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The amendments in this group all deal with wider representation procedures within both the guidance drawn up by the national LSC for the local LSCs and in the plans which the local LSCs draw up for themselves.
	Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 seek that two sets of people be consulted in the drawing up of guidance--namely, the providers, on the one hand, and the local learning partnerships, on the other. They are groups which currently have no statutory status but there are more than 100 of them in England; they are local in focus and inclusive in membership. They include the LEAs, representatives of the further education colleges, all the courier service providers and often representatives of schools, the voluntary sectors, local businesses and other key stakeholders. Under the guidance there is provision for consulting regional development agencies and local education authorities. We should like to see these two other groups included within the consultation processes.
	With regard to the drawing up of plans, which concerns Amendments Nos. 136 to 138, gremlins seem to have got into the system somewhat in that Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 are almost exactly the same. They again seek that local learning partnerships are included within the consultees for the planning process.
	In addition, we seek that a number of other local users and providers are included. Existing and potential learners, the voluntary and community organisations with an interest in education and training, the colleges themselves and workplace training providers should all be included at local level in the consultation process in drawing up the plans. Broadly speaking, this fits in with what we have been talking about; that is, the bottom-up nature of the whole process, the need for it to be inclusive and to pull in as many people as possible. We should like to see those people included on the face of the Bill.
	We support from these Benches the amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and also--perhaps in particular--the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. We feel strongly that, if we are including these other providers, it is extremely important to include universities within this process. Universities are increasingly being pulled in in terms of non-degree, sub-degree and post-degree level qualifications, and certainly in terms of the adult learning provision, post experience provision and that kind of thing. It is extremely important that where they are there they can provide a key focus. Therefore, we greatly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: In the West Midlands we are looking forward eagerly to getting the very best out of the arrangements at all the different levels. In large parts of the Birmingham neighbourhood there are great expectations that the regional development agency will focus inward investment and give more direction to industrial development over the entire region. We look eagerly and hopefully at good developments at that level. In Stoke-on-Trent we rejoice in a new unitary authority at a sub-regional level, which is focusing on and diversifying the ceramic industry in that very needy community. That is encouraging.
	Because we look forward eagerly to good things at all levels, we want them also--I speak very much for a wide cross-section of the Churches--on behalf of the lifelong learning partnerships at local level.
	Recently, there was a report from regional offices to the Department for Education and Employment. It so happens that the Churches emerged as significant players in the work of lifelong learning partnerships. I am therefore right behind the amendments which refer to local learning. We believe that local learning partnerships are excellently placed to take account of the obvious and important differences between one community and another. I am glad and proud to say that the Churches have much experience of listening to people's needs in local communities.
	However, we must not forget the regional dimension. The process of listening at local level cannot be rushed and must be tackled with a good deal of sensitivity. It is often seen as unimportant or unnecessarily time-consuming. There are times when speed is of the essence, but if one goes too fast in that area and account is not taken of local needs, speed can be counter-productive. We strongly support the Government in their recognition that the existing structures in many areas, including the local level, are failing to meet individuals' learning needs. We hope that the excellent experience that has developed with lifelong learning partnerships will be taken on board, developed and strengthened. I therefore support the group of amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: The purpose of my amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has indicated, is to ensure that higher education providers--both HE and FE colleges and universities--are fully and properly consulted by a local council preparing its annual plan. Of course, those annual plans include a statement of needs of the population in a local council's area in respect of education and training. I declare an interest as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but we are certainly not alone in our concern. I can add the voice of the university and college lecturers' union--NATFHE--to the desire to include the amendment on the face of the Bill.
	We are concerned about the measures in the White Paper, Learning to Succeed, which the Bill implements, in that there are insufficient linkages between the roles and functions of local and national learning and skills councils and providers of higher education. Currently, the Bill and the Government's prospectus for the learning and skills council make little mention of firm links to higher education institutions and place no obligations whatever on the local LSCs to consult HE providers. The prospectus desires seamless progression into HE, but only specifies that links are to be made by LSCs with the education funding council. These links concern only funding provision and degree targets. In our view the Bill needs to ensure that consultation with higher education providers take place.
	In addition, at Second Reading in this House on 17th January my noble friend the Minister stated that the Government would be requiring local LSCs to consult local lifelong learning partnerships on their plans. Higher education institutions are of course involved in the partnerships.
	Therefore, I believe that, with the support of the Local Government Association, which shares our view, a ministerial statement concerning the consultation arrangements under Clause 22(5) would be very welcome.

Baroness Blackstone: As the right reverend Prelate indicated, learning partnerships have a key role to play in the new arrangements, particularly in ensuring that local LSC plans reflect the real needs of learners in local areas. I am grateful to him for his support.
	The Learning and Skills Council Prospectus makes clear that LSCs will be required to consult learning partnerships in drawing up LSC plans. That is important, given the influence that they can bring to bear as representatives of all the key players in education, training and guidance in their localities. That is why we intend to use the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 22(5)(c) to ensure that local LSCs consult learning partnerships on their plans.
	However, learning partnerships have no statutory responsibilities for education or training. They have made substantive progress over the past couple of years and are still developing. It would be wrong to try to close off such development with a rigid definition, and we do not think it appropriate to specify them as consultees of the local LSCs' plans on the face of the Bill. Nor do we believe that imposing a requirement on the national LSC to consult all learning partnerships on its draft guidance would be appropriate. That would lead to an unwieldy and rather slow bureaucratic process of the kind that many Members of the Committee have been keen to avoid.
	In the light of the assurances that I have given that the Secretary of State will require local LSCs to consult local learning partnerships, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will not press her amendments.
	Turning to Amendment No. 122, learning providers, from the smallest provider of adult education or work-based training to the largest FE colleges, have a great deal to gain from the new arrangements that we are putting in place: more coherent arrangements for planning, funding, quality improvement and inspection, and stronger encouragement for collaboration to meet the needs of learners and employers.
	There is also a significant role in the new arrangements for local learning partnerships which bring together providers and others in a locality. They will influence the plans of the local LSC by bringing their knowledge of learners' and employers' needs to bear. I have already said how we will ensure that learning partnerships are consulted on their local LSC's plans.
	Since not all providers will be represented on learning partnerships, I am sure that the local LSCs will in any case want to consult their providers individually on their plans. However, I do not believe that we should specify that level of detail on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that it would be particularly helpful to the many thousands of providers up and down the country to send them draft guidance from the national LSC to the local LSCs and await their detailed comments. As I said, that would be unwieldy, slow and over-bureaucratic.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 226. Our intention is that the local planning process for the LSC should be as open and inclusive as possible. Too often in the past the workings of the various funding and planning agencies in the field of post-16 learning have been not only highly complex, even to those intimately engaged in them, but, I am afraid, entirely opaque and hidden from local people and communities. We want to shine a light into what is currently darkness.
	The best way to achieve this is to encourage local LSCs to be innovative in seeking ways to engage their communities and to ensure that, through the appointments that we make to senior posts in the LSC, we create a culture of direct and open consultation with providers and stakeholder groups, such as those in the voluntary sector. The Government will ensure that this happens by using, as appropriate, their guidance to the LSC. We do not believe that this is best achieved by a provision in the Bill to place an additional requirement on local LSCs to consult particular categories of people and organisations such as the amendment proposes.
	I turn now to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Warwick. My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of the relationship between the LSC and the higher education sector. Clearly, HE plays a major role in the education and training of our workforce and offers an important progression route for those who move on from further education, school sixth-form education and work-based training. I assure the Committee that close working between the LSC and the higher education sector will flow from the new arrangements. The Government stated in the LSC prospectus that the national council of the LSC would invite the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to all its meetings. This will ensure that a powerful HE voice is present at the heart of the LSC's decision-making.
	The amendment proposes that we include on the face of the Bill a statutory requirement for the local LSCs to consult local institutions on their draft local plans. However, we believe it is right only to specify in the Bill that local LSCs must consult local or regional bodies with relevant statutory strategic responsibilities. Clearly, it is highly desirable for local LSCs also to consult other bodies, including HE institutions, as part of their work to develop strong relationships with the HE sector locally. Indeed, I do not see how the local LSCs could exercise their functions appropriately without such wider consultation. But there is no need for all of this valuable activity to be reflected on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply to this group of amendments. My greatest disappointment is with her response to Amendment No. 122. Given that on the face of the Bill there is a requirement for consultation with regional development agencies and local education authorities, it is reasonable to suggest that consultation should also take place with local providers. We shall read carefully what the Minister has said, but we may return to the matter at Report stage.
	As to lifelong learning partnerships, I accept the Minister's observation about their evolutionary state and the fact that at the moment they have no statutory basis, unlike regional development agencies and local education authorities which are defined. Given their evolutionary status, it is difficult to include them in the Bill. Equally, the intention is that they should be very much encouraged to grow and develop in areas where they are not currently present. Therefore, I hope that in drawing up local plans the LSCs will be made aware of the Minister's observations today and that the intention is made plain to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 9, line 11, leave out ("education").

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 123 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 and 143. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will speak to Amendment No. 132. This group of amendments is concerned with two aspects: first, joined-up government. There are a number of pieces of legislation around, in particular the Local Government Bill. Certainly, when it comes to planning there needs to be some coherence. I notice that two of the amendments are almost identical in that they invoke Clause 4(1) of the Local Government Bill. The way in which the plans will have to be co-ordinated might be difficult: it is hard to know which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Certainly, Amendments Nos. 129 and 132 are important in that context.
	My Amendments Nos. 123, 128 and 143, leaving out the word "education", relate back to a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself. Local authorities have recently been given a new function--an obligation under the law to be concerned about economic well-being in their area. We know they are involved in economic regeneration and indeed generation. For that reason, where local education authorities are named in the Bill as needing to be consulted or to be part of the process, it seems to me that the wording ought to be "local authorities". If there is an education authority within a local authority then, of course, if it is appropriate to the local education authority, whatever the involvement is, it will be made possible by speaking through the local authority. Some local authorities do not contain education authorities; others do, I think that local authorities, whether or not they have a local education authority, will be interested in aspects of this Bill. Many of its activities will need links with employment and education and training and schools training will be inextricably linked to all issues to do with economic well-being, economic generation and regeneration.
	I believe that this set of amendments makes sense. I hope there will be a cross-reference from this Bill to the Local Government Act 2000. I beg to move.

Lord Tope: I shall speak specifically to Amendment No. 132, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. Speaking more generally, I support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. I had the good fortune to be serving on our Front Bench for both the Local Government Bill and this Bill, which have been going concurrently through your Lordships' House, sometimes on the same day. Therefore I have followed both with excitement and interest. It has occurred to me from time to time that the Government, for all their proclamations of "joined up government", have not yet realised the significance of one Bill to the other. If I may say so, this issue is an example of that. I hope the Government will take the intentions of the amendments very seriously.
	A local education authority is by definition a local authority. However, many local authorities are not also local education authorities. The Local Government Bill, when it is enacted--we are not quite there yet--will give all local authorities, whether education or non-education, responsibility to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. It seems to me entirely appropriate that this Bill, which will be enacted at the same time, should refer to local authorities rather than exclusively to education authorities. For instance, when a local authority prepares a strategy under the provisions of the Local Government Bill, it will need to prepare strategies that, arguably, fall outside the remit of an education authority. Similarly, district councils, which are not education authorities, will also have an interest in promoting economic well-being in the learning and skills needs of their local people.
	I do not mind, and I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not mind, whether these amendments are technically correct. Their purpose is to urge the Government to join themselves up a little more and to recognise that what they seek to promote in one Bill should match up with the provisions of another Bill. For that reason, this Bill should refer specifically to local authorities as distinct from the narrow definition of education authorities. That is the case in my amendment. Clause 22(4)(b) would then read,
	"any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4(1) of the Local Government Act 2000".

Baroness Blackstone: Of course the Government take the noble Lord's amendment seriously. As regards Amendment No. 123, it is important that local authorities with the key statutory duties and powers in relation to education and training are consulted on the national LSC's draft guidance to its local arms. It is the 150 local education authorities, within the total number of 388 local authorities, which have such statutory functions. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to introduce a requirement on the face of the Bill for the national LSC to consult all 388 local authorities on its draft guidance. That would not make much sense.
	However, we recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that all local authorities, including district councils, should be recognised as having a contribution to make to the plans drawn up by local LSCs. I shall have more to say about that in relation to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 129, and Amendment No. 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
	I turn to Amendment No. 128. As drafted, Clauses 22 and 23 require the local LSCs to include in their published plans details of the learning provision which, subject to consultation, they would like local education authorities to offer adults and the financial resources they will make available to local education authorities to enable them to do so. There is also provision for the Secretary of State to issue directions to any LEA which does not secure the education and training provision set out in the plan.
	Amendment No. 128 proposes that local LSCs should also include a statement of the education and training they would like a local authority, rather than, as drafted, a local education authority, to secure. This would extend statutory obligations for provision of education and training to the 238 district councils which have none at present. Coupled with Amendment No. 143, it would expose all local authorities, rather than, as at present, only local education authorities, to statutory direction on education and training matters. Amendments Nos. 128 and 143 would therefore extend the scope of the Bill far more widely than we think necessary to achieve the changes in local learning opportunities that we want to see.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 129 and 132, as currently drafted the Bill already requires local LSCs to consult with LEAs when preparing their draft plans. This is in recognition of the key role LEAs can have in the provision of accessible, appropriate and attractive learning opportunities. However, we also recognise that some district councils offer learning opportunities for adults in their areas and we want local LSCs to use their influence to encourage and support the wider range of district councils to plan and develop coherently all the learning opportunities they offer, alongside those funded by the LSC. We also recognise that, in deciding the nature and range of local provision and understanding local needs, it is appropriate to consider learning against the background of wider economic and social developments in which local authorities in general are the lead players.
	The provisions under Clause 4 in the Local Government Bill are significant and it is important that we act in a way which promotes joined-up government. For that reason, and in response to the arguments that have been put forward, the Government will consider further this proposal and come back with an amendment. In our view, this would provide the basis for strong linkage between local LSC plans and both the interests of local authorities in education and training and their wider responsibility--as enhanced under the proposed Local Government Bill--for the economic and social well-being of their areas.
	Amendment No. 130 goes further by proposing that, in preparing their local plans, local LSCs must have regard to,
	"the local education authority's education plan".
	Noble Lords may be aware that LEAs prepare a number of plans relevant to learning for both statutory and other purposes. They include the education development plan, the schools organisation plan, plans for asset management and, where LEAs want support under my department's standards fund, plans for the development of lifelong learning.
	The effect of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would be to impose a statutory obligation on local learning and skills councils to have regard to all those and others in preparing its own plan. During the debate at Second Reading, the noble Baroness accused us of having, "plans, plans, plans"; that is, too many. I believe that now she is ignoring her earlier points and imposing additional bureaucracy here.
	The Bill already includes obligations on local LSCs both to include in their plans the education and training which they agree LEAs will secure and to consult with them in preparing those plans. In our view, those obligations, together with guidance which the national LSC will give on how local LSCs should pursue them, will be sufficient to ensure that local LSCs take full account of what LEAs are doing. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Certainly on one of the amendments we have received an offer which we cannot refuse. Therefore, I believe that any further thinking will be helpful. If an amendment is brought forward, we should like early sight of it, if possible.
	With regard to my Amendment No. 130, I was not creating another plan. I believe that that is the last thing that we want. However, perhaps I should have referred to the local education authority's development plan. That is the over-arching plan for its area. One of the concerns that local authorities have is that because of the top-down system they will be left having to do the bidding of the Secretary of State/national council/47 local skills councils.
	Given that I favour the bottom-up approach, I was hoping that the initiative would be with the local authorities and that they would have freedom, flexibility and autonomy over their own plans. I hoped that they would not be left at the end of the day, as, indeed, the Bill sets out, to develop their plans in conformity with and within the framework of all the other plans that will be developed nationally. Therefore, it was an attempt not to create a new plan but to turn the emphasis round to being bottom-up rather than top-down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 125A:
	Page 9, line 15, at end insert--
	("( ) The Council shall have power to amend the guidance given to a local council or to alter its budget during the course of a financial year.").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 125A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 142. These two amendments fit together and relate respectively to Clause 21, which is concerned with guidance from the national council to the local learning and skills council, and to Clause 22, which relates to the plan which each local council must draw up each year.
	As currently framed, once made, the plans and budgetary allocations of both the national and local LSCs must be implemented as they stand. In reality, the fast-changing pace of learning and skills needs strongly suggests that at both levels LSCs will need to be able to amend their plans and budgetary allocations to take account of developments during the course of the financial year. For example, an unexpected plant closure in a local area might generate hundreds of redundancies and throughout a massive need for retraining not envisaged in the original plan. It would be unreasonable for the council and/or its local arm to be unable to respond to that situation until the next financial year. The proposed amendments would give local and national LSCs an explicit power to vary plans to cope with such situations.
	In addition, it is most unlikely that the national LSC will achieve a pattern of resource allocations to the local LSCs in its first few years which entirely matches the needs of each local area. I must say that our experience of manpower planning in the past would indicate that that is the case. It needs to have the power to keep some of its resources in reserve at the beginning of the financial year to allow for variations in the local LSC allocations in the light of emerging needs. It is for that reason that I move this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: Amendment No. 125A proposes express provision on the face of the Bill for the national council to amend the guidance given to a local LSC or to alter its budget during the course of a financial year. The Government appreciate that the objective behind the amendment is to ensure that the national council has the means by which to respond to an unforeseen change in circumstances for a local LSC during the course of that financial year.
	We made it clear in the prospectus that the national LSC would retain the capacity to make in-year adjustments and to reallocate a proportion of local budgets in the event of significant underspends or potential overspends or changing needs. The LSC will retain some capacity to invest in sector-based initiatives through NTOs where that provides specific benefits that cannot be delivered locally. The national LSC will also hold a limited contingency fund to allow it to respond to unexpected in-year changes.
	It is only right and proper that a national body, with a strong central leadership and clear national priorities, should oversee expenditure of £6 billion overall, while recognising the authority and decision-making ability of the local LSCs which comes from their local knowledge and regular contact with local authorities, education and training boards, employers, trade unions and individual learners.
	Those levers and the approach outlined will help ensure that the national LSC is responsive to local needs and is customer-led not provider-driven. But we do not believe that we need to spell that out on the face of the Bill, particularly as we shall be consulting further in May of this year on the details of the new funding and allocations framework for the LSC covering more fully the issues raised here.
	I turn to Amendment No. 142 spoken to by the noble Baroness. Again, the Government appreciate that the objective behind the amendment is to ensure that local LSCs have the ability to respond to changes in local circumstances during the course of a year. I stress that we believe that it is important that local LSCs have that flexibility and I assure the Committee that they will have it. But it is not our intention that the published plans of local LSCs will be continually updated throughout the year. That would lead to a bureaucratic nightmare, as well as possibly a need for three or four plans in one year. We envisage a single local plan for the year as set out in Clause 22(5).
	However, that does not mean that local LSCs will not be responsible to changes in local circumstances during the course of the year. We said in the prospectus that the LSC will build into its financial and planning arrangements scope for moving resources into local areas to meet needs which could not have been anticipated on a yearly planning system.
	Nothing in the Bill requires a local LSC to stick rigidly to its published plan regardless of changing circumstances. Indeed, it would be the height of folly for a local LSC to stick rigidly to a published plan which had been overtaken by circumstances. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness some real assurances which will lead her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: The Minister used three words in his reply which should be in very bold type when Hansard is printed; namely, "strong central leadership". That is what we have always suspected. That is what we have said. It is very much strong central leadership and it is very top-heavy.

Lord Bach: It is astonishing to hear that said in this context by the noble Baroness, who played such a prominent part in a government who clearly had strong central leadership at their heart. I was talking about the national LSC with its budget of £6 billion. Perhaps she would rather that it did not lead in the way we intend that it should.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am delighted to hear that we have both strong central leadership and bottom-up initiatives! I am very glad to have the assurance from the Minister that the Government envisage a degree of flexibility both at national and local level. It has been useful to get that on the record. Should there ever be any problems from the point of view of the local LSCs, it will be necessary for them to remember that it is on the record and can be brought to the attention of Ministers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Plans of local councils]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 126:
	Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("and of the skill needs of the local labour market").

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 126 is another amendment that tries to turn the Bill on its head. It makes an interesting distinction between education and training and the importance of reading the skills needs of the local labour market in the local area. For that reason I believe that there is a strong argument for inserting this at line 20 to ensure that reading the needs of the local skills labour market is considered important. That is not implicit in the words already on the page. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Recognising and meeting the skills needs of local labour markets will be a key function of the local LSCs. In the LSC prospectus we made it clear that each local LSC will produce an annual statement of the learning and skills needs of the local area. Subsection (2)(a) of Clause 22, with its reference to,
	"the needs regarding education and training of the population of the local council's area",
	gives effect to that commitment. We are satisfied that that wording covers the learning and skills needs of the local population, including in connection with the needs of the local labour market. I hope with that assurance that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am not happy with the answer, because it is one-sided. Here we are talking about the individual people in the area rather than the needs of local industry and commerce in the area. It seems to me that if this Bill is about anything, it is about making sure that those matters are matched. The subsection provides for one side of the coin but not both. I believe that the argument is a strong one, to which I shall return at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: moved Amendment No. 127:
	Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("with specific reference to the needs of persons with learning difficulties (as defined in section 13)").

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Amendment No. 127 will ensure that the local LSC's statutory plans make adequate provision for the needs of people with learning difficulties. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made when I moved and spoke to the amendments placing a duty on the councils to promote equality of opportunity for disabled learners. Suffice it to say that we all agree that there are still some who are missing out.
	I digress briefly. On Tuesday, I was extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that she will bring forward an amendment on Report in response to my Amendment No. 53 that would place a duty on the LSC to promote equality of opportunity. I was so excited by the Minister saying that she would do something of which I had no foreknowledge that I forgot to check whether her amendment--it may be quite different--will cover the local LSCs and the Welsh councils. If she could indicate that in her reply I would be grateful.
	I return to Amendment No. 127. Even if there is a duty to promote equality of opportunity on the local LSCs, when the local councils make their plans it is important that the statement of education and training needs of the population in the area should contain specific reference to people with learning difficulties. In other words, it would be excellent if we had the duty to promote equality of opportunity. Amendment No. 127 could be the mechanism to ensure delivery of that. I hope for an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I support this amendment, to which I attached my name. If we are going to bring forward a plan which does not take into account those with learning difficulties, we are effectively excluding them from the holistic approach, which is something for which we are campaigning. I suggest that this reference should happen automatically if we are to integrate people into the same education system at every level. I fully support the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I too rise to support the amendment. It is not that persons with learning difficulties are given "specific" focus; but that they are given "a" focus. The amendment is more than just a reassurance. The disability lobby has seen Clauses 13 and 14, which are important, and the amendment dovetails nicely in with them. Focus is given when plans are made and it makes it certain that that aspect cannot be ignored. The needs will be different from the needs of those who do not have learning disabilities.

Baroness Blackstone: The requirement on local LSCs to produce a statement on the learning needs of its local population must certainly extend to the needs of specific groups and interests, including those of persons with learning difficulties. I point out to the noble Baroness that under Clause 13 the LSC must have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties in discharging its main duties to secure post-16 learning provision for the population of England. In practice, it cannot do that at either national or local levels without reflecting this in its plans and strategies. However, we should avoid adding extra words to the Bill to achieve what will happen in any case. I hope the noble Baroness is able to accept that and, in the light of this and earlier statements of our commitment to the needs of people with learning difficulties, she will withdraw the amendment.
	Turning to her earlier question, our amendment will cover local LSCs and the Welsh council as well as the national council.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their strong support. I thank the Minister for her reply. I am delighted about the local LSCs and Wales being covered in her prospective amendment. That is wonderful.
	I do not feel that there would be any harm in having a specific reference in the Bill. I presume that guidance will be given on the drawing up of plans by local LSCs. If in the guidance a little jogging of the memory was given to say that this will be done with specific reference to the needs of people with learning difficulties, I would be happy. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether that would be possible.

Baroness Blackstone: I can give the noble Baroness that reassurance.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I am grateful to the Minister. I have no hesitation in saying I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 130 to 142 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Duty of local education authorities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Directions]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 145:
	Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("or
	(b) the reorganisation of education for persons from the age of 16 to 19, where such education is currently the responsibility of the education authority.").

Baroness Blatch: When we were discussing the School Standards and Framework Bill I took some time to elicit from the Government a promise that the organisational committees that were set up and the adjudicator would not have the power to remove school sixth forms. We eventually received a letter of confirmation. We now have the possibility, by an oblique method, of a direction that would have real impact on the survival of education for 16 to 19-year-olds under local authority control.
	Under Clause 25, the Secretary of State may give directions covering objectives, time limits for achieving them and provisions relating to the LSC's management. It states also:
	"Directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons".
	I am not certain what that means but I wish to add the words of the amendment for clarification.
	Either the Government mean local authorities to have power over people for whom they are responsible for providing education or they do not. On the face of it, Clause 25 is inoffensive but it is part of something inherent in the Bill--a threat to the survival of sixth forms. The amendment would put that out of bounds of strong central leadership. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Clause 25 provides for the directions that the Secretary of State will give the LSC. There is nothing novel in such a provision. It has an obvious precedent in the current direction-making powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly in respect of FEFCs under Section 56 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. When debating that legislation, it was made clear by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that powers of direction were a long-stop protection of the taxpayer's interests as regards considerable sums of public funding. That principle followed through into the Bill.
	As a last resort, the Secretary of State should intervene to direct the council. One exception is Clause 25(3), which rightly prohibits directions about the provision of council funds in respect of activities undertaken by any particular person or group. We, like the previous Administration, think it important to make it clear that the LSC is entirely independent of government in funding decisions concerning individual providers.
	The noble Baroness is seeking to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing directions as to how the LSC should exercise its functions in LEA 16 to 19 provision.
	The LSC's three main functions are participation, as a voting member, on school organisation committees where 16 to 19 matters are involved; making proposals for the incorporation of LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institutions; and making proposals for the closure of 16 to 19 LEA provision that Ofsted has found to be failing or significantly weak and has failed to make necessary improvements. The amendment betrays a mis-understanding of the LSC's powers and those of the Secretary of State. The council will be a statutory independent body. The Secretary of State would only expect to intervene as a last resort, when things have gone seriously wrong. The proposed restriction is unnecessary.
	I accept that the powers of direction in Clause 25 could be clearer. Earlier, I mentioned our intention to table amendments to clarify those powers--in particular, those of the Secretary of State to intervene if the LSC acts unreasonably or in breach of duty in respect of its functions.
	Similar provisions apply to the FEFCs under Sections 56 and 57 of the 1992 Act. Indeed, in the unlikely event that the council were to act improperly in exercising its functions in respect of LEA-maintained 16 to 19 provision, this amendment would prevent a Secretary of State from intervening to protect those affected. I doubt that that is really the intention of the noble Baroness. Therefore, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am puzzled on one point. If this is about the protection of public funds, why does subsection (3) say:
	"Directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons"?
	They are just as much an activity that incurs expenditure, yet they are outside the directions. It seems to me to be slightly puzzling as why that should be the case, bearing in mind the explanation given by the noble Baroness.
	The council is not independent in the sense that it is entirely beholden to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will issue its central directions and it will be for the national council to take those directions and plan in conformity with them. So the idea that it is somehow a free spirit out there, determining everything for itself, is simply not true; it will do it within the framework of the directions set out by the Secretary of State.
	The functions outlined by the noble Baroness are certainly right as far as concerns the Bill, but I still think that this poses a very real threat to schools. The difference here is that we are talking about LEAs' territory. These are their schools for which they have been providing all this time. School sixth forms, with 11 to 16 children within them, are single institutions. So there is very real concern here. However, the Minister has hinted that some thought will be given to qualifying the use of these powers. I welcome that move and I wait to see the detail. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Committees]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: Schedule 3 deals with the establishment of two more committees. I have absolutely no quarrel with the idea that the Government should be very specifically concerned about young people up to and beyond the age of 19. However, I have been reading Schedule 3 very carefully and there are two aspects of it that I find disturbing. First, if this national council wishes to seek advice, have research undertaken to look in depth at a particular aspect of education and training and links with employment for either pre-19 year-olds and post-19 year-olds, the best way of securing that aim would be to leave the council totally free to bring together an ad hoc committee for the purpose of taking advice from a group of people--it will be different groups of people for different things--rather than have a single standing committee.
	Secondly, there is nothing in Clause 26, which I wish to remove from the Bill, in this respect: it simply refers to the schedule. However, on reading the schedule, one sees that it would be a full standing committee, which would have the power to establish other committees as it sees fit. So already we have the national council spawning a standing committee, which, in turn, takes upon itself further powers. Indeed, we are now far removed from the democratic process. It would seem that the "young people's learning committee" would have to investigate the provision of education and training for young people and advice the council. Moreover, according to sub-paragraph (3) of the schedule:
	"The committee is to have such other functions relating to the education and training of young persons, and such functions relating to their employment, as the Council specifies"--
	that is, not Parliament but the council. The council is not accountable to Parliament and yet it will be given powers to set up another statutory committee with power to establish other committees; and they, in turn, will also have the power to incur expenditure without any accountability whatever either to the democratic, elected Parliament or to local authorities.
	I really am worried about this provision. But lest the speech note that has already been written for the noble Baroness should in any way denigrate my support for the notion that this council, if it is set up--and the noble Baroness knows that I would not go down this road and do it in this way--will not need expert specialist advice about the client groups for whom it will be responsible, I am not against that. I support it. I am very, very worried about very expensive, bureaucratic, static standing committees that would replace the flexibility of commissioning research and ad hoc groups that could provide advice. The power and the accountability would lie with the council, not with another council or another committee, and would be somewhat removed from what I call the accountability process.

Lord Lucas: I have a pair of additional questions for the Minister. First, what is the status of the minutes of these committees and the papers submitted to them, as far as publication and availability to the public is concerned? Are these papers which the Government would intend, under the forthcoming freedom of information Act, should be available to the public? Will they be published regularly? Are they papers that the Government will seek to conceal from the public?
	Secondly, it appears to me from the description that has been given of what these committees will do that they have such a limited remit and such subsidiary powers that they are unlikely to attract the kind of people one would want to be involved in these decisions. If one wants good people they should be on the main committee, surely, and not tucked away in sub-committees under special appointments by the Secretary of State. If there is not sufficient status and breadth to an appointment, one will only ever have second-class appointees. I urge the Government to think again and, if they really want good people to take part in these decisions, to find a way of ensuring that the key people with the kind of expertise for which they are looking sit on the main committee and are not tucked away on a sub-committee.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness worries too much about Schedule 3. The council must establish two committees--a young person's learning committee and an adult learning committee. The council may establish such other committees as it thinks fit. I do not believe that it is the intention that these two sub-committees should be setting up other committees as well.
	A fundamental role is to be played in the work of the LSC by the young person's learning committee and the adult learning committee which are set out in Schedule 3. The young person's learning committee, first, will be responsible for advising the national council on the best means of achieving the national learning targets for young people, including strategies for increasing participation and attainment so that as many young people as possible continue learning until the age of 19. Specifically, it will advise the council on the funding and delivery of education and work-based training provision targeted at pre-19 year olds, including modern apprenticeships and national traineeships. It will also advise on the promotion and support of work related learning, including work experience and how best to promote a successful transition for young people from school into the next stage of education, training or work.
	We want to ensure that its membership includes people who have special knowledge of the area. I hope that its membership includes people with direct experience of schools with sixth forms and sixth form colleges. The committee will also want to ensure--and here the noble Baroness may be with us--that it has direct access to the professional advice of Ofsted.
	I believe that reply goes some way to answering the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he suggests that the people who might want to serve on such a committee would not be in the first rank. I do not think that is the case.
	I turn to the adult committee, which is no less important. It will have direct responsibility for advising the LSC on achieving the national learning targets for adults and for organisations--specifically the targets for Investors in People. It will concern itself with the funding and delivery of adult education and training in FE colleges, adult learning in the community, workforce development issues, including the promotion of NVQs, and more flexible access to learning. In particular--the Government believe this to be important--there will be close links with the University for Industry as it considers the potential for on-line learning as a central part of the lifelong learning vision. Its membership should have a significant business perspective and be able to have direct access to the world of adult and higher education. It will have the direct benefit of the professional advice of the chief inspector of the new adult learning inspectorate, which we shall discuss next week.
	On Tuesday concern was expressed as to whether post-19 education would be the poor relation of the Bill. The Government believe that the setting up of the important adult committee shows our good intentions with regard to post-19 education.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked where the committees' minutes would be displayed. The noble Lord was, of course, a member of the previous government and I am therefore greatly impressed by his conversion to open government. I noted that when we served on the Select Committee a few months ago. The answer to his question is that that will be a matter for the council. However, he will be glad to hear that the principles of open government will apply. I submit that Clause 26 and Schedule 3 should be accepted.

Baroness Blatch: Have we any idea of what the financial impact of this measure will be? There is the cost of the national council, the 47 local councils, these two standing committees and the cost of any other committees that the council sees fit to establish. It appears to have a pretty open-ended remit to form any number of standing committees if it wishes to do so. As regards the question that my noble friend asked, I am not sure that it is sufficient merely to say that open government procedures will apply. These will be national committees, not local committees, unless the noble Lord disturbs us even more by saying that the local councils will also have the power to establish adult learning committees and young people's learning committees. If that is the case, that is even more worrying than the provisions in the Bill.
	If we are talking about national committees, does that mean that meetings will be open and that the public will be able to attend? Does that mean that minutes will be made public? Does it mean that the minutes will be published and placed in every library in the country, as they will impact on every person in the country? If the open government rules apply, these questions need to be asked. How big will the relevant committee be? Is there any limit on the number of people on it? Could it comprise 30, 40 or 50 people, or will it comprise 12 to 16 like the main council?
	The point of dual membership has already been addressed in that members of the council can also be members of the local councils and members of the adult learning committee and of the young people's learning committee. These are important questions as these bodies not only add to bureaucracy and to the network of committees--which are being spawned all over the place--but this process also involves a reduction in the flexibility that I sought to introduce. If the national body--as I suspect it will from time to time--wishes to research in some depth particular aspects of young people's learning and of adults' learning, it should be able to establish the kind of committee that it requires not as a standing committee but as a time-limited committee to carry out a specifically commissioned piece of work, on the completion of which it would be dissolved. However, none of these points is answered in the schedule.

Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may add to that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for congratulating me on my conversion. As I was the agriculture spokesman during the BSE crisis, I would need to have a very thick head not to have been converted to the cause of freedom of information.
	As regards the duality of committees, one can look at aspects of adult education which are purely adult and aspects of pre-19 education which are purely juvenile. But there is a very great overlap already. Surely, there is going to be a much greater one in future as we try to tackle social deprivation. A great deal of that will involve bringing young people to what we would now call adult education at a much earlier stage. Tackling social deprivation among those who are already past education will involve bringing them much more back into what we would now call pre-19 education.
	If one separates the experts in those two areas into separate committees so they cannot spark off each other, we shall lose a great deal. They will always feel subsidiary to some greater committee which is trying to combine their expertise without the benefit of their presence. That is not the best way to create a coherent, unified, well-functioning post-16 provision.

Lord Bach: I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord. There was concern that the over-19s would lose out as a consequence of some of the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, on that ground alone it seems to the Government sensible to have an adult committee. Equally, a young persons' committee is obviously important with a Bill stealing so much from 16 to 19 year-olds.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord will remember that there was genuine concern, as he has just said, about the emphasis and focus given to post-19s. Equally, there were some fairly prolonged debates on the first day of Committee about flexibility to straddle both pre-19s and post-19s. That flexibility is not present in those committees.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness took the words almost out of my mouth. I was going on to say that the noble Lord is right that there will be straddling between the age of 16 right up to lifelong learning. In some cases 19 years of age may be a time when one period of learning ends and another begins, but in another way it may not. That is why we believe it sensible to have a national council which will see the minutes from both the other committees. The council itself will be able to take a broad view covering all the matters within its remit.
	As regards committee members, I understand they are to be unpaid. The expectation is that their meetings will not be in public, but they will be filled with people from outside the council. They are not likely to be secret committees. If the public ask for information provided by the committees, the presumption is that it will be provided to them under the open government principles. That is what I meant by those principles.
	There are matters of detail which have to be sorted out. Not every matter of detail is written into a schedule of the Bill. The noble Baroness is right to that extent. No doubt in due course the details of the make-up of the committees will become known.

Baroness Blatch: That is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. One puts schedules into a Bill to include that detail. Details about membership of the national council are in the schedule, including the number of people on the committee, how they are to be appointed, their tenure and other factors, yet for some reason that detail is missing from the two committees which are not part of the mainstream committees. This is a very serious issue to which we shall certainly return. In the meantime I shall not oppose these measures standing part of the Bill.

Clause 26 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Committees (England)]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 146:
	Page 59, line 24, at end insert--
	("( ) must establish a quality recognition and improvement committee").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has asked me to apologise to the Committee for not being here. She had to leave to catch a train to return to Cambridge. She has asked me to stand in for her and to move these three amendments.
	All three amendments relate to Schedule 3. I shall first speak to Amendment No. 147 and then I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 146 and 148 which are linked together.
	Amendment No. 147 proposes that the wording of the schedule be changed slightly in terms of the functions of the committee. It seeks that the committee must investigate the provision not only of "education and training" but of,
	"appropriate education and training to meet reasonable needs".
	The wording of the amendment reflects the wording in Clause 2(2) in terms of "reasonable needs". It is essential that the underpinning rationale for the LSC's work, particularly in relation to the young people's learning committee, is founded upon the knowledge of the reasonable needs of young people in localities.
	In particular, it is very important that they receive good advice and guidance. Often young people in the 16 to 19 age group have very little knowledge of what they want to do and, therefore, in some senses of what are their education and training needs. In this respect it is vital that they have access to proper guidance. This means proper careers guidance from careers advisers who are trained up to NVQ level 4 competence in such guidance.
	In proposing appropriate education and training to meet reasonable needs we are saying that we need both to identify the needs and to give the appropriate education, training and guidance to meet those needs.
	Turning now to Amendments Nos. 146 and 148, these amendments seek to establish--I am loath to think what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will think--yet another committee. I see that the noble Baroness has walked out in disgust. In addition to the young people's learning committee and the adult learning committee there should be a quality improvement and recognition committee.
	The idea here is that there should be a statutory quality recognition and improvement committee, to be set up as a formal committee, in order to make public the local learning and skills council's quality improvement strategy. It would have three main functions: first, to co-ordinate the council's duties in response to the two inspectorates we shall be discussing on Tuesday; and, secondly, to operate a quality threshold, to include good advice and guidance, progression opportunities, a contribution to widening participation and value for money. This will prevent cherry picking by private training providers who might otherwise provide high-volume, short-term, easy-to-fill courses, leaving other providers funded at the same rate with a harder-to-fill, costlier-to-make provision aimed at securing wider participation. There has to be a legitimate concern to balance competitiveness of offer and quality.
	Thirdly, we should like the committee also to secure arrangements for the funding of programmes without qualifications. We shall be looking at Clauses 85 to 89 of the Bill next week, but these clauses concern only external qualifications. The prospectus which lies behind the Bill very helpfully makes it clear that quality assurance in other provision--provision that does not necessarily lead to external qualifications--will be publicly supported by the LSC. We should like to have that incorporated in the schedule if possible. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My noble friend Lady Blatch has asked me to express her disagreement with these amendments--a disagreement which I share. I have just spent some time arguing for a greater flexibility for the council to be able to choose how its own committees are structured and to deal with these problems in its own way. This is an excellent example of why the Government were wrong in wording Schedule 3 as they did. They should not go further down that road. It would tie up the council in a way that is entirely inappropriate. I am sure that the council will take care of those matters in its own way and will be the better for it.

Lord Bach: I believe that I am grateful for the opposition to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I am not absolutely sure.
	I turn to the amendments in the order in which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke to them. The amendments all propose changes to the committee structure for the national learning and skills council set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill. Amendment No. 147 seeks to alter the remit of the young people's learning committee. We are not clear as to how that change would improve matters. The noble Baroness will recall that the LSC's main duties as set out in Clauses 2 and 3--it seems a long time ago since we debated those clauses--already describe the learning provision which the LSC must provide in terms of that which is "suitable to the requirements" of individuals. We therefore believe that the main thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment is already contained in the Bill.
	It would not be right to have an apparently more qualified remit for the young people's learning committee than for the adult learning committee, if that was either the intention behind or the result of the noble Baroness's amendment. It is important that the two committees--which we have discussed already at some length--have an influential role and equal status within the LSC framework. I repeat that we want to attract to both committees outstanding individuals with expert knowledge to contribute to the LSC's key strategic discussions and decision-making. We believe that the Bill will help us to attract such individuals as committee members by specifying a role which is wide-ranging and focused. Essentially, the task will be three-fold: to identify needs; to assess how well those needs are being met in terms of both quality and quantity; and to make recommendations as to how they may be better met and how the LSC's available resources may best be used. I hope that that answer gives the noble Baroness some reassurance.
	I turn to the other two amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 146 and 148, the purpose of which is to require the learning and skills council to establish a third committee--a quality recognition and improvement committee. Those amendments reflect the current statutory requirements on the Further Education Funding Council. I want to take this opportunity to say how much the Government appreciate the contribution which members of the Quality Assessment Committee have made to the work of the Further Education and Funding Council.
	However--and we shall of course be debating the matter next week--our proposal is to separate the work of inspection from the funding body and to give it to OFSTED and the new Adult Learning Inspectorate. Our intention is that action on quality should be fully incorporated within the mainstream of LSC business. The specific functions listed under Amendment No. 148 will be the responsibility of the entire council, not a separate part of it. The council will, of course, be supported by the advice of the two committees in its work. The business of quality improvement will be an important part of that work.
	In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 146 and not to move Amendment No. 148.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is useful that he has set out at some length his understanding of the wording in the schedule. I believe that it is appropriate not to press Amendment No. 147 in the light of what he has said. With regard to the other two amendments, it is unfortunate that the Government are dropping the Quality Assessment Committee from the Further Education Funding Council. However, I accept what the Minister said--that its remit is now going to be taken over by the inspection procedures. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [The Council]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 149:
	Page 12, line 16, leave out ("10") and insert ("12").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: We now come to the Welsh part of the Bill--regrettably late in the day, but better late than never. I hope that we can do justice to this part of the Bill despite the lateness of the hour. I need hardly remind the Government after the events of the past few days in the National Assembly in Cardiff Bay that Wales still matters a great deal.
	The changes proposed in Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 would bring the national council for education and training in Wales into line with the learning and skills council for England with regard to size; and there is a strong case for that.
	The first point is that the main duties of both councils are much the same. As the Bill stands, the Welsh council is, if anything, more centralist in character than its English counterpart, for reasons that I shall explain. The Welsh council "may" form regional bodies on the lines of the 47 local councils proposed for England--"may" being the operative word. I hope to change that "may" into a "must". We shall return to the matter in due course. The point is that the regional committees are an option in Wales.
	For the moment, I am content to point out that the English local councils, which vary considerably in terms of the size of population covered, will also, like their parent body, have between 12 and 16 members. That makes sense to me, especially when one takes into account a great diversity of bodies with a close interest in the education and training of young people post-16.
	Here, I come to my second point, which is that the Welsh council, with between 10 and 12 members, is far too small to reflect that diversity adequately, even if some members represent more than one interest.
	Perhaps I may run through the most obvious interests. There are 26,000 sixth formers in Wales in 167 schools. Their head teachers will have a claim to a place on the council, along with the local education authorities. There are 171,000 students in our 23 further education colleges and five designated colleges. The claims of that sector are more complex than would first appear. Two of the designated colleges are Workers Educational Association (WEA) bodies; another two are St David's Roman Catholic College, Cardiff, and Coleg Harlech, the "college of second chance", much supported by the late Lady White. The last of the designated colleges is a Welsh WMCA establishment.
	Then there are 31,000 young people in employer supported training, and of course employers are keenly interested because of their skill requirements and their past experience of the training and enterprise councils, which had a good record in Wales but which are now to disappear.
	There is a lengthy list of other bodies which would regard themselves as key contributors to the council: the Welsh Development Agency; the CBI and the TUC in Wales; the Wales Tourist Board; the Welsh Language Board; the Sports Council; as well as the local education authorities, the training providers and the careers advisers, and their eight companies, to be brought together under an umbrella organisation to be known as "Careers Wales". Finally, the Higher Education Funding Council is to have a joint secretariat with the new council, as it had with the Further Education Funding Council (now to be dissolved). I can claim some paternity for the joint operation between the two councils because it fell to me to put the relevant Act into operation.
	I do not believe that a council membership of 10 or 12 can possibly meet all of the requirements and high expectations envisaged in the Bill. If the four regional committees come into being, each chairman will be entitled under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 5 to the Bill to a place on the main council. Therefore, we are talking about six to eight remaining places to cover all the diverse interests, not forgetting the Skills Wales Task Force set up by the present Government whose role is, to me, somewhat unclear.
	Having read the report of the National Assembly's plenary debate on its Education and Training Action Plan for Wales, which took place on 1st February--some days after the Second Reading debate on this Bill--it does not appear to me that the Assembly and its Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee has given much thought to the crucial issue of the size of the council. Its debate was mainly about policy, and the Bill before the Committee today was referred to only once by Jonathan Morgan, a Conservative Assembly Member, I am glad to say.
	As I am on my feet, this is perhaps an appropriate moment to say that when primary legislation is in the offing the Assembly will be well advised to complete its deliberations before either House in the Westminster Parliament embarks on the legislative process so that we may at least take account of the views of the Assembly. If it does not complete its deliberations, as in this case, it cannot blame us if we fail to legislate to meet its needs and aspirations. The Assembly's Economic Development Committee has yet to consider such matters as the enterprise function of the TECs and where other functions are best located in future.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 151. My noble friend Lady Blatch and others spoke with more eloquence than I can ever muster in favour of the amendment which proposes that 40 per cent of the membership of the English council should have business or commercial experience. That has been promised verbally by the Government, although it does not appear as yet anywhere on the face of the Bill. The same arguments apply to Wales, if anything with even greater force. We need the thrust and drive of business people to raise our GDP, which is now so low in the valleys and West Wales that we meet the Objective 1 criteria. We hope that in the next few years we can look forward to substantial investment of funds from the European Union with matching funds from the Treasury.
	The Council for the Welsh Training and Enterprise Councils describes the situation with what I believe to be cruel clarity:
	"Wales has the lowest rates of economic activity in Great Britain. This is because Wales has the lowest rates of A-level and higher education graduates of any region of the United Kingdom. For those in work, the position is not much better: low pay, a lack of skills provision, and a culture which does not recognise the need for lifelong learning. The net effect of this is obvious; we see it everywhere. The Welsh economy is under-performing. Only a new, coherent approach to economic development will put it right. This must entail a radical approach to education and training provision, both in the immediate post-16 area, and the world of lifelong learning".
	So everyone agrees with this analysis of our needs, although I have not checked these figures personally. What is not agreed is that the people whose self-interest and self-preservation will motivate them to improve the position are the business people. Of course the participants in education and training--students, teachers and providers generally--all have a powerful vested interest in success, but the hard drive comes from those who need trained, skilled people to survive themselves. Those are the business people and employers.
	It is recognised that the voice of business must be strong in the training theatre, and much effort has been expended in recent years in ensuring that that voice is heard and responded to. But with the demise of the TECs in Wales there is a real fear that the voice of business will be silenced, and there is despair, I can tell the Minister, among many employers.
	There are some commitments to business in this Bill, but they are general. What is required is a specific commitment, a guaranteed place among the partners, and that could be secured by my amendment to the effect that no fewer than four members of the Welsh council shall have had business or commercial experience. The Government would be rewarded with a return of business confidence in the scheme proposed in the Bill. I can assure them that such confidence is not present in Wales now, and it must be restored. If Members of the Committee opposite will not accept my word for it, perhaps they will accept the view expressed by Professor Kenneth Morgan in the Western Mail on 26th January. Professor Morgan, of Cardiff University, was a prominent figure in the "yes" campaign for the National Assembly. He made it absolutely clear in that article that the business community in Wales has become increasingly concerned that a body that would play a pivotal role in developing a highly skilled workforce in Wales will be dominated by public sector interests in the form of local authorities and further education colleges.
	The Government would be very wise to heed my call for assured representation for business and employer interests in Wales on the new Wales council. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I recall, when a Scottish crime Bill was passing through this House under the previous administration, there were, at about one o'clock in the morning, some seven of your Lordships present: two on each of the party Benches and one Cross-Bencher. They included three Scottish lawyers. There we were, laying down the criminal law and making massive alterations at that hour and with so few people present. Now here we are, beginning the Welsh section of this vital Bill at 11 o'clock at night. I find it disgraceful that there are no Welsh Peers on the Government Benches. Surely there must be some Labour Peers hiding nearby in case the Committee is counted out again who could give a view on this aspect of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is here and will be speaking for the Government, but in her support I feel it would be right to have a Welsh Labour Peer present.
	I hear some Welsh being spoken by a noble Lord, whose connection with Wales I did not know at all. I shall investigate further. I seem to recall he comes from north London, but I may be wrong.
	A great deal has been said this week about devolution, but let me just say something about the way this Bill has come to pass and to point out the enormous advantages there are. It so happened that the Education and Training Action Group for Wales published a paper in March 1999 making recommendations on the implementation of the proposals for the provision and administration of education and training in Wales. The committee of the National Assembly, the Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee, then took the decision that it needed to hear the views of the action group at first hand and took oral representations on the subject from ETAG and from 20 other organisations. It also considered submissions from many other individuals and organisations. Under the chairmanship of Mr Cynog Dafis, the former Member of Parliament for Ceredigion and now the Assembly Member for the Mid and West Wales region, it produced a report. I should like to quote from the conclusion:
	"The committee perceived the overall aim of relating education and training to wealth creation, social inclusion, community development and personal fulfilment as one of the greatest challenges facing Wales over the next decade. The committee strongly endorsed the proposition that the economic and social prosperity of Wales is crucially dependent upon the skills of its population and that lifetime learning is vital if those skills are to be attuned to the demands of a fast moving, highly competitive world economy. The committee therefore saw an urgent need to remove any structural impediments to lifetime learning and viewed the integration of all post-16 education and training in Wales into a seamless continuum as being fundamental to this aim".
	That committee, which is of course cross-party and contains members from all parties represented in the assembly, discussed the proposals in depth. Following that and the production of its report, the contents of this Bill were then presented to those responsible for it. The committee considered its provisions before it was published and came to certain conclusions. What has been produced for consideration by noble Lords is quite unlike the generality of material addressing legislation that comes before this House. It has been produced after the deepest consultation with all the interested bodies in Wales by a cross-party committee and after a presentation to the Welsh Assembly which gave its approval to the wording of the Bill. It is in that context that I believe the amendments put forward so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, should be considered.
	Finally, I shall speak to the amendments put forward by the noble Lord. If the Welsh Assembly committee has had the opportunity of considering these matters not simply in committee but also in full plenary session and has come to the conclusion that it is happy with a membership of between 10 and 12 people, this Committee ought not to interfere with that decision. In Amendment No. 151 the noble Lord referred to the proposal to insert,
	"not less than four of whom shall have business or commercial experience".
	He should bear in mind that an amendment to the resolution proposed on 1st February in the plenary session of the National Assembly for Wales was moved by a Tory Member, Mr Alun Cairns of South Wales West. It read:
	"The Assembly should endorse the Secretary of State for Education and Employment's commitment to include a minimum 40 per cent business membership of the Learning and Skills Council in England".
	It makes the same commitment for the national council for education and training in Wales in its regional tier. That amendment was lost by 40 votes to five, a substantial and significant majority. That is the view of the Welsh Assembly. For that reason, it should not be for this Committee or for another place to make any addition or amendment to such a decided view of the National Assembly.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Is he fully aware of the commitment that has been given by the Government in England to 40 per cent membership of the English council? I can assure him that I have heard that said by officials.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am fully aware of that but, of course, the method of appointment of the council differs. In England it is an appointment by the Secretary of State and it is right that there should be statutory guidelines for that. Here, the National Assembly itself will appoint the council and will do so in accordance with the policy. It will have the freedom of action to choose whom it considers to be appropriate to sit on that council. It will have the personal knowledge of the people who are appointed, and it should be given the maximum amount of prescription and freedom to choose those who will do the best job for Wales in this vital area. With this and with other amendments which are to be moved to the Welsh section, I respectfully urge the Committee to accept that the Welsh Assembly really does know best and that it is best informed to take those decisions. I oppose the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I begin by saying that, as a resident of the country, I find it difficult to be constantly challenged as to what percentage of me is Welsh and what percentage is English. One day perhaps someone will ask me what part of the country my great-great-great-grandparents came from! I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Conwy, that I speak for the Government on Wales and that I am totally committed to doing the best that I can on Welsh issues and on issues relating to the people of Wales that come before us.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I apologise to the noble Baroness if she should take anything that I have said as a criticism of her. I have heard her speak for the Government on Welsh issues. I know that her heart is fully in it and I apologise if I suggested anything to the contrary.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying this, but I believe that those of us who have spoken for the interests of Wales have had to repeat some things many times. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, quite rightly referred to levels of pay and comparative levels of pay in Wales. I am very proud of the fact that, in introducing a national minimum wage and, ultimately, even convincing the noble Lord's party that that was the right thing to do, this Government have given greater help to regions and parts of Wales than perhaps they have done to many other parts of the country. Therefore, I am pleased to recognise that.
	I believe that it is useful to begin by placing on record that, while I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is seeking Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 to bring the permitted number of council members for Wales in line with that for England and the arguments that he has put forward, the LSC in England will need to have more members than, indeed, there are at present on the FEFC, not least to achieve geographical balance in terms of having many more regions than the regions of Wales. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that, in saying that, I do not minimise the importance of the diversity that exists within Wales.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, outlined clearly the position with regard to this legislation and the provisions for Wales and the difference in England. Perhaps I may correct the figures that the noble Lord gave in his reference to the decision taken by the full Assembly. The figures were 45 to five. The amendment obviously did not carry the support of the Assembly members.
	Our proposals will enable the National Assembly to provide the CETW with wide representation from outstanding individuals with relevant expertise to ensure that the high quality education and training needs of Wales are met. We are confident that with a membership of between 10 and 12 we are striking the right balance. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 151. There must be a reasonable balance between educational, business and other interests on the new council for Wales. Its members will be appointed by the national assembly on the basis of Nolan principles and guidance and following the Assembly's own procedures. The National Assembly is firmly committed to the principle of selection based on merit and to the well-informed choice of individuals who have a broad range of experience and expertise with no single interest dominating.
	That is a very important principle which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, perhaps did not recognise. It surprises me that he did not do so. It is not that one chooses someone who has this experience or that experience. I know from the skills that are available that there will be many who can offer a range of different backgrounds and experience, bringing together the needs which must be met.
	The Assembly Cabinet considered this matter in concert with the Secretary of State and the Assembly approved it after very careful scrutiny and consideration.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred also to the importance of raising the provision for and expectations, and standards of people in Wales. That is exactly why the provisions of the Bill will enable greater coherence in secondary and FE provision by removing barriers to collaboration between schools and further and higher education colleges and by enabling the creation of new centres.
	I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am somewhat disappointed by the noble Baroness's reply. I had hoped for a more sympathetic hearing, particularly to the argument about the size of the council proposed for Wales.
	I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that those figures for membership of between 10 and 12 are written into this Bill, which is a piece of primary legislation. I am all for giving the Assembly as much scope as possible. But, here in Westminster, we are the people who are concerned with primary legislation. The powers of the Assembly relate only to secondary legislation, as we know. The membership figures appear on the face of this Bill.
	With regard to the diversity of interests that will clearly be represented on the Welsh council, what we have heard about the composition of the Welsh council does not, as regards the business world and employers, compare favourably with what we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She talked about the importance of the business/employer interest and, if I remember correctly, she said that the chairman of the English council would certainly have business experience. It is important for the National Assembly, and for us, to engage the support of the employers and the business people in Wales who, after all, will lose the training and enterprise councils to which they have looked in the past. However, it may well be that I shall return at a later stage to either or both of these issues.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is extremely important that one recognises exactly what the Assembly considered and the conclusion it reached. It considered that to set a percentage for any particular group or interest would be too narrow and would constrain the ability to make judgments. This is not primary legislation decided in London against the wishes of the Assembly; it is primary legislation that goes with the grain of the wishes of the people in Wales.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course, I respect the consideration that the National Assembly gave to the issue, but I was careful not to include the 40 per cent in my amendment. However, I left scope in the amendment that I tabled, namely that there should be no fewer than four representatives drawn from the business and commercial world. Of course, that can be translated into a percentage of 10 or 12, or the larger figure that I also recommended. I intended to stress the importance of the employer/business element if we are to ensure the success of the council. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 152:
	Page 12, line 22, at end insert ("including experience and knowledge of the needs of disabled people").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I rise to move Amendment No. 152 in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Many noble Lords who were present during earlier stages of our discussions will be aware that certain noble Lords referred to a Welsh amendment that had somehow crept into the English groupings. I certainly promised--I know their Lordships expect me to do so--to refer to those amendments. During an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, argued in favour of an amendment--Amendment No. 152--to the effect that the Welsh council as well as the English council should include members with experience and knowledge of disabled people. I support that, especially as the Further Education Funding Council for Wales made considerable progress in encouraging institutions to adopt inclusive strategies for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. By 1998-99 the council provided some £2.2 million to support 2,400 such students on mainstream FE courses. I am sure that we would all agree that that valuable work should be built upon.
	Amendment No. 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others, falls within this group of amendments, and deals with persons with learning difficulties or disabilities above school age but below the age of 25. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the Government,
	"shall consult on the arrangements that the LSC will develop in this area".--[Official Report, 8/2/00; col. 579.]
	Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, cannot commit the National Assembly and the Welsh Council to such consultation, but I would encourage them to consult on the issue. Perhaps the noble Baroness may be able to endorse my encouragement.
	Amendment No. 159 dealt with vocational and non-vocational learning for people with learning difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made it clear that there should be no doubt that the education to be procured by the councils should include both vocational and non-vocational courses, not just for those with learning difficulties but for everyone. In that reply the noble Baroness covered the Welsh situation as well.
	My noble friend Lord Pilkington spoke concisely to amendments which are of particular interest to us in Wales and other predominantly rural areas where sixth forms are often small and in competition for pupils with FE colleges. The Government's assurance on sixth form funding is conditional upon the maintenance of numbers, as we heard in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he said, "as long as numbers do not fall". That begs a number of questions which may arise when we discuss Clause 36. What does a fall in numbers mean, and at what point in time?
	I have sought to do justice to noble Lords who said I would refer to these amendments when we came to the Welsh part of the Bill. The final amendment to which I shall speak is Amendment No. 161, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who asked me to move it formally. That I shall do at the appropriate time. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord quite rightly identified a group of amendments spoken to earlier which have a specific interest in Wales. Identifying and meeting the learning needs of disabled people will be part of the core business of not only LSCs but of the CETW. It is not a peripheral concern. That is why the Bill requires councils to have both specific regard to the needs of people with disabilities and to report annually on their progress and plans in meeting those needs.
	That is also why the Government made a firm commitment in the learning and skills council prospectus and said that they will expect the national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities.
	In terms of the particular structure within Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will be aware that many of the matters of detail as to the implementation of this policy will be a matter for the Assembly to consider. Since the functions clearly and explicitly include provision for disabled people, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales must, under Clauses 1 and 30 respectively, have regard to the desirability of appointing members of their respective councils who have experience relevant to disability matters. With that reassurance I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We have covered the ground as promised to noble Lords who spoke either earlier today or on the first day in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [National Council for Education and Training for Wales]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 153:
	Page 62, line 4, leave out ("salaries and").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: This probing amendment is designed to elicit which council members are to be salaried. It appears that they are all to be paid. If my reading of Schedule 4 is correct, the Assembly can only determine amount. I would be grateful for clarification and some information about the current situation in respect of the payment of quango members. Are all the members of the Welsh Development Agency, for example, currently paid salaries or fees?
	I would like to know the total bill for salaries and fees but suspect that the easy answer is that that matter is for the National Assembly and figures have not yet been calculated. That begs the question of why it is necessary for the council to be under such close supervision by the Assembly--a recurring theme in my questioning. Would it not be wiser to give the council a measure of independence and responsibility, rather than have the Assembly involved in its detailed operations and second guessing at every turn?
	Amendment No. 154 relates to paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 4--which requires the Assembly's approval of any council determination of a staff appointment. Presumably that provision extends to all council staff, from a doorman to a senior executive at the central or regional office. Is it seriously suggested that every appointment must be approved by the Assembly? A similar provision applies to council appointments in England but I wonder whether the Assembly can fulfil that function properly. Surely the council should bear responsibility for its own appointments.
	Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 details the requirements in respect of members' interests and their disclosure in particular circumstances. All the good seems to be undone in sub-paragraph (6), which allows the Assembly to remove a disability arising from any such disclosure--that disability being a prohibition on taking part in any deliberation or decision of the council or any committee of the council with respect to the matter. Laymen would not see much sense in that. The Secretary of State has a similar power in regard to the English council, but that does not justify giving the same power to the Assembly. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am relieved to see my noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath return to his place, in case I need his linguistic skill from his many years living in the Principality.
	Amendment No. 153 is unduly restrictive and at odds with the existing arrangements for members of the FEFC for Wales and Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. It is right and fair that members of the CETW receive salaries for their important task. They have an important job and we expect them to devote considerable energy and time to their responsibilities. An inability to pay salaries may limit the range of talented people from all parts of the community that we want to attract to those posts. Determination by the National Assembly provides a proper safeguard against inappropriate terms being set.
	Amendment No. 154 would affect CETW staff, who will be public servants working for an Assembly-sponsored public body. I hope that my words will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. While detailed terms and conditions of its staff will be for the CETW to determine, it is surely right that the National Assembly should be able to ensure that these terms and conditions are in line with public sector policies. This is a well-established principle for other Assembly-sponsored public bodies and replicates provisions made in respect of the FEFC for Wales by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which I am sure the noble Lord will remember.
	As regards Amendment No. 155, it is right that a CETW member with an interest should disclose it when such matters are discussed, and should normally be barred from taking part in relevant deliberations and decisions in which he or she may have an interest. But an unqualified application of the provisions could lead to perverse consequences; for example, an FE college principal on the CETW being unable to take part in general debates on priorities for resource allocation because the outcome would inevitably have some impact on his or her college.
	Therefore, there should be a provision for the National Assembly to lift such a bar on an individual member where it judges this to be sensible. This is standard provision in legislation relating to non-departmental and Assembly-sponsored bodies. The noble Lord may wish to look, for example, at Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is right that this power should be with the National Assembly, rather than with the CETW in order to ensure that such decisions are made in a detached and considered way. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and not move the others grouped with it.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I said at the outset of my remarks that Amendment No. 153 was a probing amendment. I am at least wiser to the extent that I now know that members of the council will be salaried or in receipt of fees. I am equally glad to have her assurance that it is the terms and conditions of appointments and employment which will be supervised by the Assembly. I also fully appreciate the Minister's explanation of the qualification in the subparagraph referred to in Amendment No. 155 and the example that she gave of the FE college principal being inhibited in discussion, for example, of overall budgeting for FE colleges in Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
	[Amendments Nos. 156 to 159 not moved.]
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clause 32 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
	[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Encouragement of education and training]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Page 14, line 11, at end insert--
	("( ) promote equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people in education and training and all support services covering transition").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I move the amendment formally on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. I believe that it was included in an earlier group of amendments which we discussed. It was debated as part of the group of amendments headed by Amendment No. 152. That grouping included Amendments Nos. 156 to 164.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: Amendments Nos. 156 to 164 were debated much earlier on in the proceedings. Does the noble Lord wish to move this amendment formally?

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have done so.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has spoken to this amendment but has accepted that the first amendment grouped with it was not moved. My understanding was that this amendment was not to be moved.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: Is the amendment not moved?

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Not moved.

Clause 33 agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Provision of financial resources]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 162:
	Page 14, line 32, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 163:
	Page 14, line 33, at end insert ("(including employment)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 35 to 38 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 164:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:FURTHER EDUCATION: GOVERNORS
	(" .--(1) The Council may appoint a person to be a member of the governing body of an institution which--
	(a) falls within the further education sector (within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992), and
	(b) mainly serves the population of Wales.
	(2) But no more than two members of the governing body of a given institution may at any given time have been appointed under this section.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 165:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:LINKS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT: WALES
	(" .--(1) The Council may secure the provision of facilities for the gaining of work experience by young persons receiving education.
	(2) The Council may secure the provision of facilities designed to form links between (on the one hand) employers and (on the other) persons falling within subsection (3).
	(3) The persons falling within this subsection are--
	(a) persons who provide education or training, and
	(b) persons who receive it and who have not attained the age of 19.
	(4) A person is a young person in the period which--
	(a) starts with the beginning of the year in which he attains the age of 15, and
	(b) ends with the end of the year in which he attains the age of 19.
	(5) A year is a year beginning with 1 September.").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The Committee will not have failed to notice that certain clauses relating to the English council have been left out of Part II which establishes the council for Wales. This particular Amendment No. 165 refers to a new clause which is entitled,
	"Links between education and training and employment: Wales".
	It is clearly an adaptation of Clause 8 in the English part of the Bill. I have adapted it to Welsh circumstances. I understand that the Government are considering whether to insert this clause or a similar measure at a later stage in our proceedings. If they believe that the clause needs adaptation, so be it. For my part, I would be content with it as it stands. I believe that the contents of the clause should apply to Wales as well as to England. I am bound to say that this clause led to an earlier debate and there was some concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Blatch about the open-ended nature of the power contained within the clause relating to further education governors. I think we will leave that to one side for the moment. I shall concentrate on the Government's response to this replica of Clause 8 which is entitled, as I have said,
	"Links between education and training and employment: Wales".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I ought to declare an interest before speaking to this amendment. I have members of my family who currently benefit from work experience placement schemes in Wales.
	Work experience placements in Wales will be the responsibility of the careers service companies under contract to the National Assembly. We have already made provision in Clause 34 for the CETW to provide funding support to foster links between employers and those who provide or receive post-16 education and training. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the Government in their opposition to this amendment. Again it is a matter that has already been covered by the National Assembly in Wales. It has considered the matter and it is satisfied with the provisions made in Clause 34 with regard to financial provision and its view should prevail.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Baroness has given. I understand the provision that is made in Clause 34 but I wanted to ascertain the reasoning behind the application of this clause to England but not to Wales. However, having been given the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 166:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:FURTHER EDUCATION: GOVERNORS: WALES
	(" .--(1) This section applies if there is at any time a vacancy in the membership of the governing body of an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992).
	(2) The Council may appoint a person to fill the vacancy.
	(3) But no more than two members of the governing body of a given institution may at any given time have been appointed under this section.").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: This is another example of a proposed new clause which relates to further education governors. It is a replica of Clause 11 of the Bill. However, I believe that that has been overtaken by a new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Amendment No. 164. The power that the measure gives to the Assembly to appoint governors has caused concern in England. I dare say that many in Wales will be concerned about its open-ended nature when they realise fully what it means. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave us an assurance earlier that certain safeguards will be provided as regards the use of the power. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can add nothing to what my noble friend Lady Blackstone said when speaking to this subject earlier. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has expressed his awareness that this amendment has been overtaken by the Government's Amendment No. 164. I thank him for the time and trouble he has taken in raising this issue. I hope that, in view of the Government's amendment, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 167:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PLANS: WALES
	(" .--(1) The Council--
	(a) must make and publish a plan for each of its financial years;
	(b) may make and publish such other plans as it thinks fit.
	(2) A plan for the Council's first financial year must be published as soon as is reasonably practicable after the year starts.
	(3) A plan for any subsequent financial year of the Council must be published before the year starts.
	(4) A plan for a financial year must include--
	(a) proposals as to how the Council intends to achieve in the financial year any objectives which should be achieved in the year in conformity with directions of the National Assembly or with conditions imposed under section 46;
	(b) the Council's financial proposals for the year, and in particular proposals as to how it plans to keep to its budget for the year.").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The proposed new clause replicates Clause 15 in the English part of the Bill. Clause 15 states that the LSC,
	"must make and publish a plan for each of its financial years".
	It goes on to specify the detailed requirement. I believe that this is a sound clause and that it should apply also to the Welsh council. It may be argued that the substance of the clause can be included in the remit given by the National Assembly to the council, but we have no certainty that it will be so included. We have an opportunity here and now to put the requirement for an annual plan on the face of the Bill. I believe that that is where it belongs. It is so fundamental a requirement that it seems to me to belong to the sphere of primary legislation rather than a remit which, of course, can enlarge on the contents of the clause. Needless to say, careful planning is all important in the sphere of education and training and I am sure that we should highlight the need for it. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As regards the planning and strategic regime of the CETW, the National Assembly has made it clear that it will set out its requirements on these matters in the remit letter to the new council for Wales. We are aware of the significant interest of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in the devolution settlement and of the impact that the Government of Wales Act has made on Wales.
	We should all welcome the opportunity that devolution has given to Wales to choose its own direction to a considerable extent in post-16 education and training. The intention of the National Assembly to deal with the planning and strategic functions of the CETW through its remit letter is a very good example of that. I hope that the noble Lord will agree and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is a moot point whether this is a matter which should be put on the face of the Bill as a requirement or included, as I have suggested, in the remit to be given to the council. I do not feel disposed to argue strongly one way or the other.
	I should have spoken also to Amendment No. 168. What I said about planning applied equally to strategy. Again, I have adapted Clause 16--some might say that I cribbed unashamedly--so that it is applicable to Welsh circumstances. It seems to me that the formulation by the council of a strategy for the exercise of its functions and to achieve its objectives is fundamental and belongs, as I have said, to primary legislation. I am not against giving latitude, as I have stressed, to the National Assembly, but there is ample scope for flexibility after the basic principles have been laid down.
	I noticed in reading the debate of the plenary session of the National Assembly on 1st February that some Assembly Members for Wales wanted something different. Vive la difference seemed to be the call of the day. I say yes to different treatment when that is clearly beneficial to Wales, but not difference for its own sake.
	I cannot see the Welsh council being effective in attaining its objectives without a strategy. Indeed, it will be lost without one and the education and training of young people will suffer. I reiterate that the requirement should be written into the Bill. I believe that as legislators we would be failing in our duty if we did not include it as a requirement.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the noble Lord. I understood that he was speaking to both amendments together. My earlier reply still holds.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I draw attention to one matter contained in the report of the post-16 education and training committee of the National Assembly for Wales. It states that,
	"The primary legislation establishing the National Council should be drafted in such a way as to allow the National Assembly to retain discretion and flexibility".
	Surely it is in the fields of finance and strategy that that flexibility will be exercised.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have no doubt that a great deal of flexibility will be exercised, but what we are talking about and seeking to insert into the Bill are fundamental requirements that a strategy be produced and annual plans. I can only reiterate that I believe that that belongs to the area of primary legislation. The Government clearly do not share my view.
	I may return to this point at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 168 and 168A not moved.]
	Clause 39 [Research and information]:
	[Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 171 and 172:
	Page 16, line 37, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").
	Page 16, line 37, at end insert ("(including employment)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
	[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Clauses 41 to 45 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Committees (Wales)]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 174:
	Page 64, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: This is an important amendment, small as it may seem. It seeks to make the establishment of regional committees obligatory. Those of your Lordships who know Wales well know of its diversity within, and how different west Wales is from the south-east, which in turn is a world apart from north Wales. Powys and mid-Wales, too, as an area, is unique in character.
	Fixing the boundaries of these regions is always a vexatious problem, but some progress has been made. Since the passing of the Government of Wales Act 1998, and as a result of the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency, the regions are reasonably well defined.
	I understand that it may well be the intention of the National Assembly to establish four committees, coterminous with the regions of the Welsh Development Agency. That decision will be heavily debated--the sub-division of Wales is always controversial--and I should like to spare the Assembly some of that discussion by making regional committees, at least, obligatory. There are other important matters to consider and we and the Assembly must move on.
	The committees that may be set up--which I believe must be established if the whole of Wales is to participate in this scheme--will be purely advisory and very different from the English local councils, which will have executive functions. There are those in Wales--especially those who have had experience of the TECs--who argue that the Welsh regional committees should be similarly constituted. As advisory bodies, they say, the Welsh committees will simply be talking shops. Employers and business people, whose support is vital, will be reluctant to participate in such committees.
	This, of course, begs the question of how the national council will operate at regional and local level. I understand that there will be some 15 of what are described as community consortia for education and training--almost one for every local authority; we have 22 local authorities--but they will not have any real power either. That will be retained by the national council, which will operate through its regional offices and which will fund training providers direct.
	Is this the real scheme of things? If that is the case, it is not reflected in the Bill except by its absence. In other words, there is no description in the Bill of how the scheme will work in practice or the mechanism by which the council's functions will be exercised on the ground. That contrasts with the position as regards England, which is at least much clearer.
	I must confess to a fear that Wales and its council will fall between two stools: the advisory regional committees on the one hand and the equally powerless community consortia on the other. As a first step towards clarification and establishing a firm structure, I propose that the duty to establish the regional committees be written into the Bill. In that event, the rest of the schedule will apply. It will save the Assembly a great deal of time and enable it to get on with its business.
	I am glad to say that the CBI at least is supportive. Its latest parliamentary brief states that:
	"Meeting skill needs in the regions of Wales will require a similar or greater level of local flexibility as in England. Wales will lose out if there is not a level playing field in this regard. To this end Welsh business and CBI Wales are keen to see strong regional committees in Wales which can take the lead in identifying and meeting labour market needs. Schedule 5 para 1 states only that these 'may' be created, not that they should be. The CBI would welcome a change to this point from 'may' to 'shall'"--
	I cannot go with it all the way; I have put in "must"--
	"together with clarification about the powers and flexibility which these committees will have".
	Amendment No. 175 seeks that a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee should be established. The requirement to form such committees is written into Schedule 3 in the section of the Bill relating to England, where it is stated that the council must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee. Why is it thought that such committees are a must in England but do not merit even a mention in Wales? I am sure that the Welsh council could form such committees under its general powers, but that is not a complete answer.
	Furthermore, the functions of the two committees are investigative and advisory in the main. The areas of youth and adult learning both require--as we heard in earlier debates--persistent investigation with a view to smooth and effective delivery and development. We do not have all the answers. I speak from my personal experience as a Minister in the Welsh Office deeply interested in those fields and the difficult problems that they posed in my time. I am sure many of those problems are still extant. I should like those committees, which are the keys to future development, to be written into the Bill.
	Amendment No. 176 relates again to the issue of the size of regional committees. Local councils in England will have between 12 and 16 members, compared with the Welsh regional committee's eight, including the chairman. I am not sure what the justification is for that disparity. Of course, they are not strictly comparable; the Welsh committees are advisory rather than executive. Nevertheless, it may be argued that, being advisory, they should be drawn from a wide range of interested bodies to ensure that their advice is soundly based.
	The four TECs that they replace have an average of 15 members each, which I gather from Annex A to the "Public Bodies 1999" document. Although again they are not strictly comparable, all the TECs being locally based companies with employer led boards, there are similarities.
	The bodies that will have a claim to membership are those I listed when we were discussing the composition of the main council--employers, sixth form heads, teachers, local authorities, FE colleges and higher education institutions, the CBI, the TUC, the Welsh Development Agency, and so on. Those bodies do not easily lend themselves to duplicate membership to the extent that they can be limited to a totality of eight. It is unwise to attempt that limitation. It will only result in criticism of the exclusion of some obvious claimants to membership. So I think the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment.
	Amendment No. 177 again requires that:
	"not fewer than four ... shall have business or commercial experience".
	It has to be said that there is a great deal of disaffection in Wales in the business community. I think it has been underestimated by the Government. It arises in part from the abolition of the TECs, but also business does not agree with the educational-institutional public sector bias implicit in the Bill.
	One businessman told me that the National Assembly was distinctly "business unfriendly". I do not think that the Assembly should enjoy that reputation. I suspect that it can be attributed to some extent to the fact that few Assembly members have business experience and a high percentage come from the public sector.
	To be fair, many of the Assembly's documents, including the report by the Assembly's Post-16 Education and Training Committee, stress the importance of,
	"The participation of business at all levels in the new arrangements to give a national, regional and local perspective on the skills needed to generate substantial improvements in wealth creation in Wales".
	That is an excellent statement. I could not have expressed it better myself. It is the first of the committee's key principles. But for some reason it is not reflected in the Welsh parts of the Bill. We should put that right. Amendment No. 177 gives us the opportunity to do so.
	The CBI would like the requirement for 40 per cent business and commercial representation to apply to the regional committees as well as the Welsh national council. However, I think that a share of four out of a total complement of 12 would go some way towards meeting the wishes of employers in Wales. I strongly recommend that the Government listen to these pleas and give them some consideration. Otherwise, I fear that they will not secure business and employer support for the Bill's contents. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I recognise and defer to the enormous experience that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has had in the Welsh Office. He was indeed the anchor-man of the Welsh Office for so many years. I am sure that no Minister of State has ever had greater experience of the workings of the Welsh Office during his time. However, there is a danger that some of his proposals run along the lines that, "if England's got it, Wales should have it as well in primary legislation". I really do not think that that is necessary.
	The particular issue of regional tiers of the national council was described by the Post-16 Education and Training Committee as one of the key issues upon which it had to decide, and it deliberated long and hard before reaching its final conclusions on the subject. The Assembly Secretary had himself proposed four regional boards with boundaries coterminous with the Assembly's regional committees, the regional economic fora and the existing TECs. The views that the committee received from the CBI, the Council for the Welsh TECs and so on favoured business-led regional arms of CETW with boundaries coterminous with those of the economic development fora.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is right to point out that there is a business view. On the other hand, the view of public servants in the education sector was that, although they supported a regional tier with an advisory role, it would dilute the model and considerably increase the administrative burden. Consequently, after considerable discussion--of the kind that has not taken place over the proposals for England--the committee came down in favour of a model which approached that proposed by the Government in this Bill. No greater cross-party consideration and reception of submissions could be envisaged than has happened with the principles that lie behind the drafting of this Bill. I support the Bill as it is and oppose these amendments.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that the fundamental principle which needs to be tackled here is that devolution leads to a process, well described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in which there is a joint approach and co-operation in a democratic family partnership. It cannot be paternalistic. There is a danger that the detail of the amendments to which the noble Lord draws attention tonight will move away from partnership and towards imposition. That would be resented by the Assembly, in our view quite rightly.
	There has been considerable debate in Wales about the arrangements for the CETW's regional committees. Following the account by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the plenary debate on 1st February the National Assembly made clear its expectation of the new council to establish a committee for each of the four regions within Wales. The National Assembly, with the support of the cross-party Post-16 Education and Training Committee, made it equally clear that its strong preference was that the new council should have a permissive power rather than a duty with regard to the setting up of committees. That is what we have provided should happen.
	Amendment No. 175 seeks to place a further duty on the CETW to establish two further committees, one for young people and the other for adults. As the noble Lord recognises, that would impose the same sub-structure in Wales as in England, but the issues, policies and needs of Wales are distinct from England's. It would be preferable to give discretion to CETW on this matter, as we have provided in the Bill.
	As to the minimum number of members required for a regional committee of the CETW and its composition, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, seeks to raise the number from eight to 12, at least four of whom should come from the business or commercial sector. The National Assembly considered that and believed that a minimum of eight members would be sufficient to ensure efficient operation. Members will be appointed on the basis of having the right experience, knowledge and skills for the job, rather than whether they come from the education, business or commercial sector. In saying this, the National Assembly recognises the key input of the business sector and has pledged that each regional committee will have a chairman with a solid business background.
	Forgive me, at this late hour, a small anecdote. During the late Lord Joseph's time as Secretary of State, he visited a tertiary college in Lancashire. He greeted the person who chaired that body with the words, "Who do you represent?" The Conservative county councillor replied, "I'm an employer; I am a trainer; I am a local authority member; I am a member of a voluntary organisation; I come from your Party; I am the parent of two daughters at the college; my wife is a student and I am a student at night. Which hat would you like me to say I am wearing?"
	Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 would remove the National Assembly's control over the locus of the CETW's regional committees. Since the regional committees will ultimately be accountable to the National Assembly, it is essential that the National Assembly has a clear and real say in what they do. I hope, in the light of this reply, and the experience I have recounted, that the noble Lord will feel confident to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may begin by simply saying to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that my approach to these issues is not to say that if England has some of these clauses Wales must have them too. It is rather that I wish to know quite clearly why they do not apply to Wales.
	I have to be quite clear in my understanding of how this Bill is going to work in practice in Wales. We are familiar with the English situation--the national council and the power of the local councils--but quite clearly in Wales all the real power is going to be concentrated in the national council. The regional committees, if they come into existence, will be purely advisory. So this justifies my earlier remark that there is even more centralisation of power in Wales under the system proposed in this Bill than there is in England. We do not have the regional equivalents of the English local councils.
	Therefore, I would be grateful, before I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, if the Minister could confirm my belief that that is the way the national council will work--through local offices and taking advice only from regional committees.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is again describing a different process. The framework of accountability and responsibility for making this system work will be determined by the Assembly. That is the result of devolution, and we believe it to be right.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 175 to 179 not moved.]

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 180:
	Page 65, line 12, at end insert ("including community consortia for education and training").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: This amendment contains the first reference to community consortia for education and training. These are the local bodies which have featured prominently in the Education and Training Action Group's report in Wales. It pre-dates the Assembly, and of course the proposal is also featured in the Assembly's Post-16 Education and Training Committee deliberations.
	The report of that committee, itself welcomed and approved by the full Assembly on 1st February--as we have heard--endorses the concept of local consortia and urges the Assembly Secretary to produce a framework for their establishment. It is common knowledge that around 15 will be established in Wales. They will comprise local providers, including further education colleges, local authority school sixth forms, private training providers, Welsh medium secondary schools, voluntary organisations engaged in post-16 learning and other partners in adult and higher education.
	The report goes on to say that,
	"The community consortia should be non statutory".
	Yet they can be "charged by the CETW"--the Council for Education and Training in Wales--to prepare proposals for the delivery of quality post-16 education and training provision relevant to the needs of its area in return for public moneys.
	I am somewhat mystified as to why such bodies should be non-statutory when they will be in receipt of public funds and will be charged with specific duties by the council. Clearly they will be important bodies and I believe that at least they deserve a mention somewhere in the Bill. If the amendment is carried, it will not in any way inhibit the National Assembly or the council. The council will specify functions and appoint members and, if the community consortia are to receive public moneys, they will of course be subject to the usual constraints.
	As I said earlier, perhaps the whole structure of community consortia, regional committees and the national council is something of a facade and the real work will be done under the auspices of the Skills Wales Task Force, another body which does not appear in the Bill. I should be grateful for a little clarification on these points and a statement of how the framework will deliver its objectives. I realise that the amendment itself is imperfect and that the new words might be better placed after "Council" in the preceding line. However, I think that the thrust of the amendment is clear enough. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has said, Amendment No. 180 would bring local community consortia for education and training within the scope of the CETW's powers in relation to its committees other than regional committees. However, local consortia will not be part of the CETW. They will be voluntary partnerships of education and training providers, employers and others, which will help plan the delivery of post-16 learning in their areas. The distinct components of the consortia will have equal status and will be funded directly by the CETW.
	The CETW will be tasked by the National Assembly with deciding the actual size, boundaries and composition of community consortia, but it is the National Assembly's intention that no single interest will dominate. Community consortia partners, including employers and voluntary sector representatives, will together plan the provision for their local areas.
	The task force will advise on the practical measures which can be taken to ease skills shortages, to improve the extent and quality of learning in the workplace and to ensure that providers of education and training are responsive to the skills needs of employers and individuals. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I am beginning to see rather more clearly how this Bill will work in Wales. We know that the community consortia are already in existence in certain areas, and it is clearly intended that they should multiply. However, as the Minister has explained on more than one occasion, the real responsibility for the implementation of the Bill will rest with the Assembly. I certainly wish it well in that task. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before one o'clock.